IN RE: Alfred V. GELLENE (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in 1980 and was previously admitted to the practice of law in New Jersey in 1979. By January 2004 order of this Court, respondent was suspended for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to maintain his biennial registration obligations from 1995 through present, and he remains so suspended (3 AD3d 662, 664 [3d Dept 2004]). Between 1990 and 2010, respondent was disciplined a total of four times in New Jersey – both privately and publicly – for his neglect and lack of diligence in both civil and criminal matters, including his failure to timely submit appellate briefs and to respond to client inquiries. In 2022, respondent was suspended in New Jersey for three months due to misconduct in two civil matters, including failing to comply with a court's order concerning discovery submission and to communicate with his clients. Given his established misconduct in New Jersey, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) seeks the imposition of discipline in this state. While respondent was noticed of AGC's motion, he has not responded to same.

“Upon application by [AGC] containing proof that a person ․ has been disciplined by a foreign jurisdiction, the Court shall direct that person ․ to demonstrate ․ why discipline should not be imposed in New York for the underlying misconduct” (Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [a]). In response, a respondent may file an affidavit stating one or more of three limited defenses (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b]). AGC avers that, based on respondent's established misconduct in New Jersey, he is subject to discipline in this state under both the former and current Court rules concerning professional misconduct in other jurisdictions (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] [former § 806.19]; Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13). While respondent has not been heard in response, despite notice of AGC's motion, thereby waiving any of the available defenses (see Matter of Wiener, 251 AD3d 1336, 1337 [3d Dept 2026]), we must nonetheless evaluate whether the established misconduct in New Jersey constitutes rule violations in New York under the rules applicable at the relevant times, as such determinations raise questions of law (see e.g. Matter of Cruikshank, 230 AD3d 901, 902-903 [3d Dept 2024]).

In 1990 and 1991, respondent received private reprimands in New Jersey for his conduct in multiple civil matters, including failing to provide answers to interrogatories and to pursue a claim, despite repeated requests by the client that went unanswered (see New Jersey Rules of Prof Conduct rules 1.1 [a], [b]; 1.3, 1.4 [a]; 3.2). Respondent was issued a letter of admonition in 2009 by the New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board (hereinafter DRB) as a consequence of his failure to have a criminal appellate matter properly transferred to him, among other misconduct (see New Jersey Rules of Prof Conduct rule 1.3). AGC contends that respondent's misconduct as established by the private reprimands and his violation of New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct rule 1.3 as set forth in the 2009 admonition constitute violations of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 (A) (3) (22 NYCRR former § 1200.30).¹ As the Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 (A) (3) (22 NYCRR former § 1200.30) prohibited an attorney from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him or her, and our sister Departments have previously concluded that violations of New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct rules 1.1 (a), (b), 1.3 and 1.4 (a) constitute violations of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 (A) (3) (22 NYCRR former § 1200.30) (see Matter of Bassetti, 143 AD3d 27, 29 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of Weichsel, 135 AD3d 156, 157 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of Schlem, 308 AD2d 220, 222 [1st Dept 2003]; Matter of Bosies, 217 AD2d 358, 361 [1st Dept 1995]), we grant AGC's motion as to respondent's misconduct as set forth in his 1990 and 1991 reprimands and 2009 admonition.²

In 2010, respondent was the subject of a reprimand issued by the Supreme Court of New Jersey for various misconduct that included failing to file briefs in various appellate matters, to respond to the court's inquiries and orders to show cause concerning one of the matters and to communicate with his client (see New Jersey Rules of Prof Conduct rules 1.1 [a], [b]; 1.3, 1.4 [b]; 3.4 [c]; 8.4 [d]). While AGC contends that respondent's violations of New Jersey's Rules of Professional Conduct rules 1.3 and 1.4 (b) would not constitute rule violations in New York under the Code of Professional Responsibility (22 NYCRR former § 1200.0) absent specific corollary rules, we reject such arguments, given our previous conclusions in our discussion of respondent's 1990 and 1991 reprimands and his 2009 admonition (see Matter of Bassetti, 143 AD3d at 29; see also Code of Prof Responsibility DR 6-101 [A] [3] [22 NYCRR former § 1200.30]); thus, we deem such misconduct established. Lastly, we find, as argued by AGC, that respondent's established violations of New Jersey's Rules of Professional Conduct rules 1.1 (a), (b),³ 3.4 (c) and 8.4 (d) would constitute rule violations in New York, as the respective New Jersey rules are similar, if not identical, to the New York rules in place at the operative time (see Code of Prof Responsibility DR 1-102 [A] [5] [22 NYCRR former § 1200.3]; Code of Prof Responsibility DR 6-101 [A] [3] [22 NYCRR former § 1200.30]; Code of Prof Responsibility DR 7-106 [A] [22 NYCRR former § 1200.37]).

As a consequence of further misconduct – which included neglecting legal matters and failing to respond to a disciplinary authority's demands for information – respondent was suspended by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in March 2022 for a period of three months (see New Jersey Rules of Prof Conduct rules 1.1 [a]; 1.3, 1.4 [b]; 8.1 [b]). Based on a review of the order suspending respondent, we conclude that his violations of New Jersey's Rules of Professional Conduct rules 1.1 (a), 1.3, 1.4 (b) and 8.1 (b) would constitute rule violations in New York, inasmuch as the New Jersey's rules are similar, if not identical, to their New York counterparts (see Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.3 [a], [b]; 1.4 [a] [3], [4]; 8.4 [d]).

We are not required to impose the same discipline imposed in the other jurisdiction, but rather are tasked with imposing a sanction that protects the public, maintains the honor and integrity of the profession, or deters others from committing similar misconduct (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 [b] [2]). In aggravation, AGC cites respondent's failure to report, to both it and this Court, his extensive disciplinary history (see Matter of Radshaw, 213 AD3d 1193, 1194 [3d Dept 2023]; see also Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [d]), as well as his longstanding biennial registration delinquency – which includes more than 15 registration periods – and the resulting suspension, neither of which respondent has sought to cure (3 AD3 at 664; see Judiciary Law § 468-a [5]). Given these facts, as well as respondent's failure to respond to the instant motion, we find that he has demonstrated disregard for his fate as an attorney in this state; thus, we suspend respondent for one year (see e.g. Matter of Wiener, 251 AD3d at 1338).

ORDERED that the motion of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this decision; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for one year, effective immediately, and until further notice of this Court (see generally Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16); and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form in the State of New York, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto, or to hold himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in this state; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys and shall duly certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15); and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall, within 30 days of the date of this decision, surrender to the Office of Court Administration any Attorney Secure Pass issued to him.

FOOTNOTES

1.   While the record presented by AGC does not contain the specific written reprimands and AGC's motion does not specifically reference the New Jersey rules implicated in these reprimands, the implicated New Jersey rules are referenced in later New Jersey decisions imposing discipline on respondent. Accordingly, we evaluate these implicated New Jersey rules against the Code of Professional Responsibility (22 NYCRR former § 1200.0).

2.   While respondent's violation of New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3.2 may constitute a violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-101 (A) (1) (22 NYCRR former § 1200.33), we decline to conclude same given AGC's failure to specifically allege such a rule violation.

3.   While AGC does not make any specific arguments that respondent's violation of New Jersey's Rules of Professional Conduct rule 1.1 (b) would constitute a rule violation in New York, we nonetheless conclude that such misconduct violates former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 (A) (3) (22 NYCRR former § 1200.30) (see e.g. Matter of Bosies, 217 AD2d at 361).

Per Curiam.

Garry, P.J., Aarons, Powers, Mackey and Corcoran, JJ., concur.