Matter of Berotti, 2021 NY Slip Op 07301 [202 AD3d 71]

December 22, 2021

Per Curiam.

[*1]

In the Matter of William G. Berotti, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Second Department, December 22, 2021

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Diana Maxfield Kearse , Brooklyn ( Sara Mustafa of counsel), for petitioner.

{**202 AD3d at 72} OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam.

The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts served the respondent with a verified petition dated January 8, 2020, containing one charge of professional misconduct. After a hearing on April 12, 2021, the Special Referee submitted a report dated June 2, 2021, in which he sustained the single charge. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the findings of the Special Referee’s report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and proper. The respondent, although duly served with the Grievance Committee’s motion, has not interposed a response or requested additional time in which to do so.

The single charge of professional misconduct alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of rule 8.4 (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), by failing to timely re-register as an attorney with the Office of Court Administration, in accordance with Judiciary Law § 468-a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1, for registration periods 2015-2016 and 2017-2018. The respondent finally re-registered for those periods on July 23, 2019.

In view of the respondent’s admissions and the evidence adduced, we find that the Special Referee properly sustained the charge. The Grievance Committee’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to impose, we have considered, in mitigation, that the respondent’s attorney registration was eventually brought current, the financial difficulties the respondent experienced during the relevant time period, as well as the respondent’s [*2] sincere remorse for his misconduct. Notwithstanding the mitigation, we consider the respondent’s extensive disciplinary history {**202 AD3d at 73} involving similar misconduct to be a substantial aggravating factor.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the respondent is publicly censured.

LaSalle, P.J., Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Austin, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the Grievance Committee’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report is granted; and it is further, Ordered that the respondent is publicly censured for his professional misconduct..