119 A.D.3d 74 *; 985 N.Y.S.2d 873 **; 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3704 ***; 2014 NY Slip Op 3762 ****; 2014 WL 2118267
[****1] In the Matter of Henry A.O. Banji (Admitted as Henry Aderemi Olubunmi Banji), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent was admitted to the bar on September 27, 2005 at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department as Henry Aderemi Olubunmi Banji.
suspension, disbarred, stricken, roll, counselors-at-law, reinstatement, cooperate, suspended, mail
Attorney and Client — Disciplinary Proceedings
Inasmuch as more than six months elapsed since respondent attorney was suspended from the practice of law based on his failure to cooperate with the Departmental Disciplinary Committee’s investigation of allegations that he was guilty of professional misconduct, and he neither appeared nor applied in writing for a hearing or reinstatement during that time period, respondent was disbarred pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g).
Counsel: [***1] Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York City (Kaylin L. Whittingham of counsel), for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Judges: David Friedman, Justice Presiding, Rolando T. Acosta, Richard T. Andrias, Helen E. Freedman, Darcel D. Clark, Justices. Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Andrias, Freedman, and Clark, JJ. All concur.
[*75] [**873] [**874]
Respondent Henry A.O. Banji was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Third Judicial Department on September 27, 2005, under the name Henry Aderemi Olubunmi Banji. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
By order entered April 25, 2013, this Court, upon the motion of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, suspended respondent from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further order of the Court (106 AD3d 73, 965 NYS2d 5 [1st Dept 2013]). [***2] The suspension was based on, inter alia, respondent’s failure to cooperate with the Committee in its investigation of a complaint alleging that he neglected a client matter by failing to file an appellate brief, resulting in the dismissal of the client’s appeal. We found that respondent’s professional misconduct in failing to cooperate with the investigation in any way “immediately threatens the public interest, thereby warranting his immediate suspension from the practice of law” pursuant to the Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 603.4 [e]  [i] (106 AD3d at 76).
The Committee now seeks an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) on the ground that he has been suspended under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) and has not appeared or applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement for more than six months from the date of the order of suspension. The Committee notes further that respondent has not filed an affidavit of compliance with this Court’s suspension order as required under 22 NYCRR 603.13 (f).
The Committee avers that it has served respondent with the papers supporting the instant motion at his three last known [***3] addresses by first-class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, and that it has received no response.
Inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court’s April 25, 2013 suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York (see Matter of Gadsen, 112 AD3d 65, 973 NYS2d 186 [1st Dept 2013]; [*76] Matter of Way, 109 AD3d 148, 967 NYS2d 650 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Reis, 105 AD3d 62, 960 NYS2d 639 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Claffey, 99 AD3d 201, 950 NYS2d 477 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Kennedy, 55 AD3d 169, 863 NYS2d 370 [1st Dept 2008]).
Accordingly, the Committee’s motion should be granted and respondent is disbarred pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Andrias, Freedman and Clark, JJ., concur.
Respondent disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective [***4] the date hereof.