The NYC BOE Perp Talk

I'm announcing the start of a new series:

Criminals at the New York City Board of Education

I'll put the series on the right of this blog, and use the headline "The NYC BOE Perp Talk" which is obviously a take-off on the police term "Perp Walk". Wikipedia defines perp walk as: an American slang term which refers to the police practice of intentionally parading an arrested suspect (or "perp", short for "perpetrator") through a public place so that the media may observe and record the event. The suspect is typically handcuffed or otherwise restrained, and is often dressed in prison garb.

The NYC Perp Talk will be more damaging, because I will post the person's name and information on this blog and my website where it will be forever preserved in cyberspace.

In this series, I will post any indictment by an 'official' agency - such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation - of an employee of the New York City Board of Education (see below). I do not accept rumors, allegations, or other such hearsay, but I'll take anything that you've got and investigate.

Once proof is given of wrong-doing beyond a shadow of doubt (my shadow of doubt, because I can), the person's name will be posted as well as all of his/her acts that were illegal, unreasonable, or simply wrong. This way, all readers will know where to find the miscreants.

So, start the drums!


My first inductee into this Hall of Shame is, of course, Joel Klein. While he has not been found guilty of fraud, bribery, extortion, and the like....yet, we do believe that the day may come when he makes a perp walk out of the doors of Tweed with his coat hiding his face and his hands in handcuffs. So, all we will add to his entry into this illustrous crowd is the article I have named "Kleingate".

Another inductee is MILTON SMITH, recently indicted for extortion, conspiracy to commit extortion, conspiracy to commit bribery, and bribery. Now you know why the bus routes were changed on January 29, 2007, the coldest day of the year.

Department of Justice Press Release
LINK

For Immediate Release
February 11, 2010 United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
Contact: (212) 637-2600

Former NYC Department of Education Inspector Sentenced in Manhattan Federal Court to 15 Months in Prison for Extortion and Bribery

PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that former New York City Department of Education ("DOE") inspector MILTON SMITH was sentenced today to 15 months in prison. SMITH was found guilty following a one-week jury trial before United States District Judge BARBARA S. JONES on February 27, 2009, of conspiracy to commit extortion, conspiracy to commit bribery, and bribery.

According to the Indictment and the evidence at trial:

SMITH worked as an inspector in the DOE Office of Pupil Transportation ("OPT"). OPT sets the specifications for bus routes; oversees the process by which private bus companies bid for and obtain certain bus routes; processes requests from bus companies to have certain routes classified as "extended" (and hence subject to larger contract payments) because they begin earlier or run later than standard DOE bus times, including midday and field trip routes; and conducts safety and mechanical inspections of school buses. SMITH was specifically assigned to the OPT division responsible for providing bus and other transportation services to special education students.

From approximately 2000 to 2004, SMITH solicited and accepted tens of thousands of dollars in cash payments from various private bus company owners who held transportation contracts with DOE. In exchange, SMITH funneled field trip bus routes -- worth hundreds of thousands of dollars -- to certain bus companies. At times, SMITH fabricated certain bus routes that were neither needed by DOE nor performed by the bus companies, and assigned those trips to the bus companies who paid him. SMITH also took payments in exchange for overlooking certain safety and mechanical violations in connection with routine DOE bus inspections.

SMITH, 56, of Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, was found guilty of all charges against him: one count of conspiring to use his official position at DOE to extort bus company owners; one count of using his official position at DOE to extort bus company owners; one count of conspiring to receive bribes to influence his actions as an employee of an agency, the DOE, that received federal program funding; and one count of receiving bribes to influence his actions as an employee of the DOE that receives federal program funding.

In addition to the prison term, Judge JONES sentenced SMITH to three years of supervised release and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $21,500.

SMITH is the seventh and final defendant who is a current or former DOE supervisor or inspector to plead or be found guilty in this case. On February 17, 2009, GEORGE ORTIZ, 64, of Bronx, New York, pleaded guilty to extortion and bribery charges and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. On February 6, 2009, NEIL CREMIN, 61, of Queens, New York, and IRA SOKOL, 70, of Brooklyn, New York, pleaded guilty to bribery charges. CREMIN was sentenced to four months in prison and SOKOL was sentenced to three years probation. On April 8, 2008, JEFFREY DUNAT, 53, of Staten Island, New York, pleaded guilty to extortion and bribery charges. On April 23, 2008, DORON WINKLER, 58, of Pomona, New York, pleaded guilty to extortion and bribery charges. On April 25, 2008, GEOFFREY BERGER, 58, of the Bronx, New York, pleaded guilty to extortion and bribery charges. DUNAT, WINKLER, and BERGER have not yet been sentenced.

Mr. BHARARA praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General and Office of Labor-Management Standards, the New York City Police Department, and the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District.

This case is being prosecuted by the Office's Organized Crime Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys ELIE HONIG and KENNETH POLITE are in charge of the prosecution.

On second thought, I'll induct Mr. Smith's accomplices, George Ortiz, Neil Cremin, Ira Sokol, and the Maddalone Brothers:

GEORGE ORTIZ and fellow supervisors NEIL CREMIN and IRA SOKOL

Former Board Members-Trustees of NYC Transit Union Plead Guilty
Submitted by Carl Horowitz on Fri, 11/13/2009 - 18:00

When they weren't serving in their capacity as union officials, Nicholas and Paul Maddalone shook down bus company owners. Now they're set to join several partners in prison. The Maddalone brothers, formerly board members and assistant trustees of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181 in Queens, N.Y., on September 10 pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on various extortion and bribery charges. They allegedly had obtained tens of thousands of dollars in coerced payoffs related to a federally-subsidized program for special education students in the New York City public school system.

NYC School Bus Inspectors Sentenced, Union Officials Indicted in Bribery Scam
Submitted by Carl Horowitz on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 16:30

Even with the Genovese crime family less overtly in the driver's seat, Local 1181 of the Amalgamated Transit Union hasn't been entirely clean. But the union's legacy of corruption recently received a major blow in Manhattan federal court with a round of criminal actions. On May 26, Neil Cremin, a former New York City Department of Education (DOE) school bus inspector, was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to four months of incarceration to be followed by four months of home confinement and ordered to make $30,000 in restitution to the DOE. Some two weeks later on June 8, George Ortiz, a former DOE school bus inspector, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison to be followed by two years of supervised release and ordered to make restitution of $5,000. Each had been accused of extorting and/or accepting bribes. Between these actions, brothers Nicholas and Paul Maddalone, former board members and assistant trustees of the Queens, N.Y.-based Local 1181, which represents about 15,000 New York City school bus drivers, mechanics and escorts, were indicted on June 1 for extortion, unlawful payments and conspiracy to commit bribery.

New York City School Bus Inspectors Plead Guilty
Submitted by Carl Horowitz on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 23:47

Local 1181 of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) in Queens, N.Y. for years had been in the pockets of the Genovese crime family until the union's leaders were brought down by federal racketeering charges a few years ago. And even after the parent union placed the local under trusteeship, there was some additional cleaning up to do. Last spring, four New York City school bus inspectors and supervisors were indicted for various acts of extortion, bribery and bribe-taking going back to the mid Nineties. Neil Cremin, Ira Sokol, George Ortiz and Milton Smith at the time pleaded not guilty. But the evidence against them was too strong. On February 6, Cremin and Sokol pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to receiving bribes; Ortiz and Smith pleaded guilty in the same court to extortion and receiving bribes.

NYC School Bus Inspectors Charged with Extortion, Bribe-Taking
Submitted by Carl Horowitz on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 23:00

Local 1181 of the Amalgamated Transit Union in Queens, N.Y. long had operated as a subsidiary of the Genovese crime family before its leaders were taken down on racketeering charges by federal prosecutors a couple of years ago. Local President Salvatore Battaglia, Secretary-Treasurer Julius Bernstein, and benefits manager Ann Chiarovano either had been convicted by a jury or entered a guilty plea. One-time acting Genovese boss Matty “the Horse” Ianniello also went down. Late in 2006 ATU International President Warren George (pictured at right) placed the local under temporary trusteeship.

Yet there was some unfinished business. On May 13, four New York City school bus inspectors and supervisors – Neil Cremin, George Ortiz (retired), Milton Smith, and Ira Sokol – were arraigned in Manhattan federal court following the unsealing of indictments against them for acts of extortion, bribery and bribe-taking going back to the mid Nineties and totaling at least $1 million.

Also inducted, thanks to the crack team at South Bronx School blog:

Mychael Willon

Thanks, SB!

Two ComData Consulting, Inc. Employees Are Charged With Violations of the H1-B Visa Program

Teachers with H1-B visas should be careful.

Feds Struggle with H-1B Case
LINK

A court finds federal investigators acted recklessly in the aftermath of last year's bust of an alleged nationwide H-1B scam ring, arresting 11 people in seven states and bringing a 10-count indictment against a New Jersey IT services firm, Vision Systems Group.....

Two Employees Arrested For Extortion And Attempting To Intimidate A Whistleblower
by BCheung on April 6, 2010

Sateesh Yalamanchili and Trinath Chigurupati, two employees from ComData Consulting Inc. were arrested and charged with extortion and scheming to obstruct federal investigation within the New York area.

ComData Consulting Inc. typically hires and sponsors foreign workers through their H1-B Visa Program, to work within their IT field. Under the H1-B Visa Program, the employer is required to pay certain wages and other benefits to their foreign workers by United States Department of Labor.

On January 15, 2010, the United States Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (DOL-WHD) commenced an investigation on ComData‘s alleged violation of failure to pay required wages to its foreign workers, which both defendants were responsible for. ComData allegedly owe approximately $142,000 in back wages to 4 of its foreign employees.

Between January and February 2010, Yalamanchili and Chigurupati, purportedly exerted threats and $5,000 of bribery to one of the employees ComData owes wages to, to recant statements made to DOL-WHD.

A consensually recorded video by this employee, during one of the meetings with Yalamanchili and Chigurupati, indicated acts of extortion. Chigurupati reached an agreement with the employee that if the employee lied to DOL-WHD stating that he has no issues with his wages with ComData, he will receive $5,000 in exchange, and that his H-1B Visa would not be revoked.

If convicted, Chigurupati and Yalamanchili each face a maximum penalty of 25 years of imprisonment and a fine of $250,000 for one count of extortion and one count of attempting to obstruct federal investigation.Two N.J. men charged with extortion, obstruction in case of Illinois firm that allegedly intimidated whistle-blower

Two N.J. men charged with extortion, obstruction in case of Illinois firm that allegedly intimidated whistle-blower
By Star-Ledger Staff, April 05, 2010, 7:52PM
LINK

MIDDLESEX COUNTY — Shortly after a foreign computer consultant complained he had been lured to the United States on a promise of a job and cheated out of $53,000, he received a late-night visit from two hostile men, according to authorities.
He was pulled from his Middlesex County house on Jan. 22, forced into a car and taken for a long ride on a cold night while the two men threaten to "take care" him. They wanted the consultant to withdraw complaints he made to federal labor investigators about their employer, an Illinois company that recruited the consultant to come to the United States, according to a federal indictment unsealed today.
Now, two employees of the firm are facing extortion and obstruction of justice charges, which carry up to 20 years in prison.
Trinath Chigurupati, a 36-year-old Indian citizen living in Monmouth Junction, was arrested at his home Wednesday and released on $150,000 bail. Sateesh Yalamanchili, 38, who recently moved from New Jersey to Wood Dale, Ill., surrendered today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Shipp in Newark, who set his bail at $150,000.

The intimidated consultant, said federal prosecutors, is a witness in a year-old probe by the U.S. Department of Labor into the suspects’ employer, ComData Consulting Inc. of Rolling Meadows, Ill., which recruits foreign workers with an expertise in web development, information technology and software development. The firm generally outsources the employees to other companies after sponsoring them for entry into the United States on special temporary visas, known as H-1Bs, reserved for foreign workers with specialized skills.

On Jan. 15, labor officials filed a civil complaint accusing ComData of failing to pay and underpaying four immigrant workers, including the consultant, about $142,000 after recruiting them under the H-1B program. Harassment of the computer consultant by Chigurupati and Yalamanchili began five days later, federal prosecutors said.
ComData was not named in the indictment, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Moscato declined in court today to discuss whether his office is probing the firm or other witnesses have been harassed. ComData failed to return multiple telephone calls.
Chigurupati and Yalamanchili initially pressured the consultant on Jan. 20, after inviting him to a restaurant for what was supposed to be a job interview, authorities said. The threatening car ride followed two days later, and on a third night, the two men entered the consultant’s home, rousing him from sleep with slaps to the chest and shoulders, according to the charges.

On Feb. 4, the two men met him again at a restaurant and offered to pay $5,000 for him to recant his story, authorities said, adding the consultant had gone to federal authorities by then and was outfitted with a hidden recorder that captured every threat.

Yalamanchili and his lawyer, William Lundsten, declined comment on the charges today. Chigurupati’s lawyer, James A. Plaisted, said he was still reviewing the charges and called Chigurupati a "respectable hard-working individual."

Winning Your 3020-a Arbitration: Fire Your NYSUT Attorney, Don't Settle

I think that it is time to get to the basic problem with the 3020-a process, as I, an observer for 7 years ( a member of the general public at an open and public hearing) and then a paralegal assisting UFT members and/or Attorneys with 3020-a,  see it: NYSUT lawyers and the arbitrators on the NYC panel do not protect your due process rights, and the hearings are not "fair". Due to the fact that most charges are being preferred by a principal, the arbitrator does not have the jurisdiction or authority to rule on the charges thus given to a tenured pedagogue due to Education Law 2590-j   which gives the right to remove and discipline a teacher to a community superintendent...not a principal. But there still must be a vote. 3020-a goes into how the school board must vote on specifications (see Ed. Law 3020-a(2)(a)) preferred against a teacher before the teacher is given the charges. Everyone charged with 3020-a in New York City must see that the Notice of Determination of Probable Cause has no date for the Executive Session, and is signed by the principal or Superintendent, neither of whom has any authority to sign that piece of paper.

I wrote this article originally in October 2010, I am re-posting here:

Therefore an argument can be made that the arbitrator does not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine Just Cause and the hearing must be delayed, thus effectively dismissing the charges. I have a Motion To Dismiss written by NYSUT New York Counsel Claude Hersh and Attorney Neil Dudich which says just that. Why wont NYSUT Attorneys bring this up at 3020-a hearings?

By the way, what happens to this clause when the person appointed to the title of Chancellor doesn't have a contract, as Joel Klein does not, and yet Education Law 2590-h says that he MUST? Read this:

"* § 2590-h. Powers and duties of chancellor. The office of chancellor of the city district is hereby continued. Such chancellor shall serve at the pleasure of and be employed by the mayor of the city of New York by contract. The length of such contract shall not exceed by more than two years the term of office of the mayor authorizing such contract....."

Please review my articles:
Look at Article 61 in A Personal View From Betsy Combier On NYSUT And What The Attorneys Do Wrong In The 3020-a Process;

I filed a freedom of information request for Mr. Klein's contract in 2005 and again in 2007:
The "Who Are You Kidding??" Award Goes To: Joel Klein, New York City Board of Education Pretender

 NYC Teacher Hipolito Colon Makes History and Sues the NYC BOE, The Panel For Educational Policy, and NYSUT For Violating His Rights

Mayor Michael Bloomberg as Co-Partner in Chief of the New York City Department of Education: Performance Review

Editorial: The New York City Department of Education is a Sham and Mike Bloomberg is the Flim-Flam Man (7/7/2007)

Betsy Combier Speaks Out on the Constitutional Mess Created by Mayoral Control of the New York City Board of Education (7/22/2007)

Another issue that the NYSUT attorneys ignore is the right a teacher has to an open and public hearing. While this decision is a right given to the Respondent not only in 3020-a but also in the UFT contract, if the teacher going through the 3020-a does not ask for an open and public hearing at or before the pre-hearing conference, then he/she does not get it. The hearing will be closed. No NYSUT attorney discusses this unless the teacher brings it up. More often than not if a teacher brings up the issue, the NYSUT Attorney will say, "You better not have an open hearing because then the NYC DOE will bring in the press, and your story will be in the news."

Baloney. Press almost never comes to the 3020-a hearings of any teacher, unless asked by the teacher - aside from Steve Brill who was told by Joel Klein to attend the 3020-a hearing of teacher Lucienne Mohammed because she had filed a federal lawsuit against the NYC DOE and needed to be put into her place [of shame]. So, what is so scary about the press arriving at your hearing if you are innocent of all charges?? If you are innocent, and the news is that you are guilty, then you can take action and get damages. David Pakter just sued the New York Post and won release of the name of the person who told the newspaper that he was charged with "sexual misconduct". He is about to pursue an action against the person who was the source for the false claim.

Or, the NYSUT Attorney will say, "you shouldn't have an open hearing because I dont feel comfortable. (So? What are you trying to hide?) Or, "The arbitrator wont like you and will terminate you or give you a worse penalty than you would have had if you did not have an open and public hearing." (WHAT?? This is crazy).

Most people - including me - believe that an open and public hearing is the best way to honor your due process rights. If you have observers in the room with you, you have an extra set of eyes on what is going on, and this is always good. Of course, all people who attend the 3020-a should be silent at all times while the hearing is on the record, and should never make any movement that might seem in any way suggestive of comment. There is no passing of notes. But any lawyer who tries to keep a hearing closed is, we believe, saying, I want to hide something. In fact, on friday morning I was at 51 Chambers Street for a hearing and a NYC DOE attorney told me, "Betsy, are you coming to my hearing? All my hearings should be public, because I have nothing to hide." Exactly.

It is interesting to note that about two weeks ago I was asked to attend a hearing with a new arbitrator, Leona Barsky. I walked in the room with the Respondent and the private Attorney, and Ms. Barsky came up to my face and screamed, "Who are you? What is your name? Who sent you here? Who do you work for?" My replies were that I was a member of the general public, my name is Betsy Combier, and no one sent me, I am just an observer. She was not convinced. As it turned out, she immediately made the hearing a "pre-hearing" (which is closed) and I went to the hearing of another teacher who had asked for me to attend, starting at the same time. I wonder what Ms. Barsky is worried about. I'll be probably following her cases on this blog, as she seems clearly worried about the public watching her.

Even more important to the issue examined here is my suggestion (not legal advice, because I'm not an attorney) that if you are not guilty of any of the charges preferred against you, DONT SETTLE. Go through your 3020-a. This way you preserve your right to sue the New York City Department/Board of Education for actionable misconduct relevant to your specific circumstances (you should discuss this with a private attorney). Many teachers are discussing a class action and I have began searching for a large law firm.

By not settling you are establishing your rights to complain about the process that brought you to the 3020-a hearing in the first place, because this is where the NYC DOE fails. They created a mess by ignoring laws, rules and regulations that prevent angry principals from throwing false claims at people who work in their schools and have them stick. The New York City DOE knows this. For example, a teacher who was charged started his 3020-a and then was scheduled for "mediation." Simultaneously he decided to fire his NYSUT Attorney (Mitch Rubenstein) and hire a private attorney, who was going to accompany this teacher to the "mediation". The mediation was cancelled.

Now there could be many reasons for Theresa Europe (pictured above), head of the Gotcha Squad, to cancel the mediation at the last minute, but my guess is that she did not want the private attorney in the "mediation" session. The "mediation" that she is talking about seems, from the reports of many of the people who have gone through this, to be not what the average person would think of as mediation. Basically what happens is, a teacher is given a date to come to 51 Chambers Street and he/she meets with a "mediator" - an arbitrator on the UFT/DOE NYC panel who has been designated a 'mediator' for the case, but is NOT the arbitrator appointed to hear the teacher's 3020-a - and he/she is told "you better take the deal/pay the fine in the settlement agreement/retire/resign or else you will be terminated at your 3020-a".

Too few teachers are saying "Sorry, no" and walking out.

A private attorney probably would see immediately how wrong this is. Also, if a document is signed under duress, after extreme harassment or other actions that compel, then the document can be rescinded.

If you are a teacher who is extremely afraid of your 3020-a and all the threats that you have heard start making sense to you, take a deep breath and go into your alpha level and try to get back the sensibility to go through with your hearing to the end. A settlement may be good for a short while, but it may not be. Think about this:
- Does your settlement/deal include a clause that says that you will be immediately removed from the ineligible/inquiry list? Get this into your final settlement!

- Does your settlement/deal say that all charges will be removed from your file and will never be used at another hearing in the future?

I will give you an example:

In 2002 or thereabout, teacher X taught swimming at a school. He was tenured, and taught for many years. He typically started races by shooting a starter pistol. On one particular day a student who disliked him complained that he had shot a pistol in the school. He was brought up on disciplinary charges, and his attorney told him to just pay the fine and the charges would be dropped, and only a letter would be placed in his file. He agreed. (why, I dont know). In 2010 he was accused of saying something to a girl, thrown into a rubber room, and brought to 3020-a. His charge was saying something improper to a student, which he fervently denied, but then the NYC DOE handed in the prior charge of shooting a pistol in a school in 2002, and the arbitrator terminated his employment saying that these TWO wrongs showed a history of bad character. Yet the pistol event was never adjudicated at a 3020-a, this teacher only got a letter to file, and it was to end there.

Settlement is admitting guilt. If you are not guilty, why are you paying a fine and admitting that you did something wrong? What are you paying for?

The question of where the fines go remains unanswered, at least publicly. No one is answering this question - which I, for one, ask all the time. And, please tell me, all you NYC DOE readers, what District 65 is?

I'll find out eventually. Here is a funny story: a teacher went through her 3020-a and was fined by arbitrator Howard Edelman $8500. Only, he found her not guilty of any misconduct, he only wanted to stop her from turning around quickly in the classroom ever again. She appealed, and Judge Paul Fineman overturned Edelman's decision as "shocking to the court's conscience". However, before the decision came down, the NYC DOE demanded the money. Cheryl Smith, the NYC DOE Attorney on the case, told this teacher, "You can pay us in cash or by money order, but you cannot give us a check."

What did this teacher do? Paid her fine by check, and gave me a cancelled copy so that I could see what the Bank account of the NYC BOE was. I'm still seeking information on District 65, so please email me at betsy.combier@gmail.com if you have any information. I dont need your name.

To sum up, NYSUT attorneys are now trying to rush all their clients through the system, first by "mediation" that in my opinion resembles extortion, then through unfair procedures enacted as part of an expedited 3020-a hearing.

Wikipedia defines extortion as follows:
"Extortion, outwresting, and/or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force, but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.^"

Everyone should dig his/her heels in the ground and put a stop to this rush to judgment and perfect storm of injustice by hiring an excellent private attorney who will use the law to stop the NYC DOE from taking away your career and stigmatizing your professional life. I have met and can suggest terrific people. Unfortunately, they are not 'free' (you've paid for legal representation with your mandatory dues to the UFT), but I guess I can say that the following applies here: "You get what you pay for".

Betsy Combier

PS: Fidgety, a fellow blogger, posted the following:

May 17, 2010

Why I fired my DOE (oops!) NYSUT Lawyer...
LINK

At our first meeting, I clearly requested an "Open and Public" hearing so that my lawyer could give notice to the arbitrator and DOE lawyer. I followed up on this request with an email asking for confirmation.

By our fourth meeting, I noted that my lawyer had still not solidified my request with the hearing officer and asked her why.

I said, "I sense that you don't want me to have and open and public hearing." "Well, she said, "You sensed right". She then proceeded to paint an ugly picture of an out of control hearing room filled with unruly reporters and friends of the Principal. "If you have an open hearing, the Principal can bring in anyone he wants to. Anyone. That may not be in your best interest. You never know who he might bring in". And, "Do you really want the press distorting your story the way they have done with other cases?"

Armed with the confidence that somehow, "The truth will set me free", I still insisted on an open and public hearing despite the obvious dismay of my lawyer.

I could only reach my NYSUT lawyer through the NYSUT office, that is... when it was open, which meant that I had to call when the office was open, even just to leave a message. The recording said that if you know the '3 digit code' of the person you are trying to reach, please enter it now. As a client, I asked my lawyer for her 3 digit code. Her response was, "Uh, what do you need it for? Has there been a gap in our communication?" "Yes,as a matter of fact. I called you five days ago and this is the first time you have returned my call." "Well...Is there a problem with that? I am very busy."(doesn't want to be bothered)"Yes, there are times when I would like to be able to leave you a message." Her response was, "I think that we've been emailing just fine, don't you?" "No". (Obviously I wouldn't be asking for your code if I was able to reach you, idiot).

After several months of sending emails with scant response from my lawyer,I was beginning to get nervous. When she called me on a Sunday night at 10pm on the last day of spring break, I asked her again for an alternative number. Again, she refused to give me one. Her excuse was that she'd had trouble in the past with clients(teachers) calling her at all hours of the night and had reservations about ever giving out her cell phone number to a teacher again...(I wondered if that reservation included calling her clients on a Sunday night at 10pm.)

When I asked what concerns she had, she responded that she'd rather not divulge that information, and... "Is this the reason you called me?- to pick a fight?"

My paranoid NYSUT lawyer wouldn't allow anyone to sit in on my meetings with her. I found it unusual that I couldn't be accompanied by someone, anyone of my own choosing. Her reason was that she had not established 'confidentiality' with that person. (They were my support system stupid, not yours.)

Before our third meeting, I asked my lawyer why she wouldn't allow me to bring someone in with me for support. Her response was that she didn't feel 'comfortable'. I said that, "It's not about 'you' feeling comfortable. I am the client. This is my case. I am choosing to bring this person in. I trust this person". As a client, I should be able to bring in anyone that I want. (Shouldn't I?) Her response was, "Well, what do you know about lawyers? How much experience have you had with lawyers anyway?"

Does this sound professional to you?

It started to become very clear to me that my DOE-(oops!)NYSUT lawyer was not working in my best interest when she divulged private information to my Chapter Leader without my permission. It seemed that she- my lawyer, needed assurance that the events I had described to her actually occurred the way that I described them. Who was breaching client-lawyer confidentiality now?

My NYSUT lawyer was completely overwhelmed with too many cases and it was adversely affecting the preparation of my hearing. As the amount of documents that I submitted to her grew, so did her disorganization. Each time that I met with her, it was like starting from square one. As we were going through the documents I had submitted to her at previous meetings, I came across one that didn't seem familiar. As I began to read it aloud, her response was, "Oh that's not yours", grabbing it out of my hand. "I was wondering where that document was! I don't know how that paper got in there". That document, that 'confidential document', was from another teacher's case that she was working on. I began to wonder how many of my documents had been mixed up or 'fallen' somewhere that they shouldn't be... And she was the one concerned about "confidentiality?".
It was obvious that my lawyer had her own set of rules which she felt didn't apply to her. I had no confidence that she was working for me and not the DOE or some other ultimate plan. Three weeks before my hearing, I fired my DOE-oops! 'NYSUT' lawyer and hired a private one. I believe that it was the best decision that I have ever made. There was no doubt that the new lawyer had the experience and knowledge that the NYSUT lawyer was clearly lacking. He was one step ahead of the DOE and UFT's tricks which I believe included assigning me a ridiculous and severely inept NYSUT lawyer.

Eric Goldstein, Former NYC Department of Education Employee in Charge of School Food, Found Guilty of Taking Bribes and Serving Kids Tainted Food

Eric Goldstein, the former head of the Department of Education’s Office of School Support Services, was convicted of taking bribes to ignore health violations from the supplier of chicken tenders to the city’s schools.AP

From Betsy Combier, Editor:  

When you work for the NYC Department of Education and know that other administrators are stealing from the $37 Billion budget pot without consequences, you may want a little for yourself. If they can, so can I, right?

No, Mr. Goldstein, this scam does not include you. You were caught this time, and when you were running the school bus scam in 2018.

Fraudulent money schemes are too easy to set up at the NYC DOE. We, the public, need a Special Counsel like James Gill (Gill Commission) and Edward Stancik (SCI when it started and was a real investigative agency) to unravel all of this.

See these posts as well:

Former New York City Department of Education CEO of School Support Services and Three Executives of SOMMA Food Group Convicted of Extortion Conspiracy and Bribery

Ex-DOE exec convicted of taking bribes, turning blind eye to tainted chicken tenders served to NYC public school kids

School Official Convicted After Students Ate Chicken With Bits of Metal

Scoundrel Spotlight - Eric Goldstein

ABC News on Goldstein Story

and this from 2018, when Goldstein was fired for the "Bus Scandal"

Eric Goldstein  [photo: Kristy Leibowitz]

...he was re-hired. Why?

See also:

Winning 3020-a, and The New York City Department of Education "Investigators" - or Not

Betsy Combier

betsy@advocatz.com

Editor, ADVOCATZ.com

Editor, ADVOCATZ Blog

Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice

Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials 

Disgraced NYC public schools exec who turned blind eye to tainted food begs judge for mercy

Finally, he’s caring about children.

The disgraced New York public schools executive convicted of taking bribes and serving tainted food to city kids says his own family is “barely hanging on” — as federal prosecutors seek to lock him up for six years.

“I am pleading for mercy,” Eric Goldstein, a former official at the DOE, wrote in an Aug. 23 letter, in which he tried to get sympathy by describing how hard his two sons and ex-wife had been suffering because of his crimes.

“Not especially for me, but for [his family] because without my financial, emotional and physical support I fear that they will be cast adrift and drown.”

Goldstein’s appeal for the heartstrings comes after he and three defendants — Michael Turley, Brian Twomey, and Blaine Iler — were found guilty by a Brooklyn federal jury in 2023 of extortion and bribery charges for the kickback scheme involving Texas-based meat supplier Somma Foods.

Goldstein, 56, pushed Somma Foods’ chicken products into city schools despite recurring health issues, in return for kickbacks that included thousands in cash and a share in the company.

He even got money to pay his divorce attorney, prosecutors have said.

Jurors were shown disturbing photos of some of Somma’s offerings, including chicken drumsticks oozing a thick-red liquid, and other chicken products that contained plastic, bones or metal in them.

Goldstein turned a blind eye to tainted chicken served to schoolchildren in exchange for bribes from three co-defendants.DOJ

Goldstein received bribes from Somma employees to keep their food inside city schools.DOJ

In the letter, Goldstein bemoaned about how his family — two sons and a former spouse — face “actual life or death” from the fallout of his actions, and that it any jail sentence would be a “crushing punishment” to his family.

“I truly cannot imagine a more searing pain than knowing that your actions and decisions might cause the eviction, dissolution, and devastation of your own family,” Goldstein, who acknowledge he wears a “unfading scarlet letter of felon and failure,” said.

Goldstein fast-tracked getting Somma foods into nearly 2,000 schools starting in 2015. But the company had issues keeping up with the demand after millions of dollars worth of food orders.

Then from Sept. 2016 through March 2017, schools reported bleeding from half-inch pieces of “wire-like metal” and blue plastic found in poultry — and a food service manager needed to receive the Heimlich maneuver after choking on a bone in a chicken tender.

It took until April 2017 for the DOE to remove all Somma products from schools after repeated complaints by students and staffers, prosecutors said at trial.

His attorneys are asking the judge to keep Goldstein out of jail because of his “fundamentally good character,” citing his 15-year stint at the Department of Education and more than two dozen letters sent by family and friends.

Then from Sept. 2016 through March 2017, schools reported bleeding from half-inch pieces of “wire-like metal” and blue plastic found in poultry — and a food service manager needed to receive the Heimlich maneuver after choking on a bone in a chicken tender.

It took until April 2017 for the DOE to remove all Somma products from schools after repeated complaints by students and staffers, prosecutors said at trial.

His attorneys are asking the judge to keep Goldstein out of jail because of his “fundamentally good character,” citing his 15-year stint at the Department of Education and more than two dozen letters sent by family and friends.

Eric Goldstein (right) and co-defendants including Blaine Iler (left) will be sentenced on September 9.DOJ

“Eric has been crushed by the realization that all he will be remembered for is his involvement in this case. That this experience might culminate in his incarceration and the certain devastation of his family that would follow is often too much for Eric to bear,” his attorneys said in their sentencing submission letter.

But prosecutors, who are seeking to lock up Goldstein for 63 to 78 months, laughed at his attorneys trying to downplay his role in the chicken scandal.

“The notion that Goldstein, who was the Chief Executive Officer of School Support Services, responsible for SchoolFood, athletics and busing, was not a high-level decisionmaker is, candidly, disingenuous, and the Court should summarily reject,” prosecutors said in their own filing.

Prosecutors added that Goldstein’s greed also harms potential vendors doing business with the DOE because they will “wonder whether they too will need to make payments to DOE officials” to get their products approved.

Each of the other co-defendants face up to a little more than five years in prison, according to the feds.

They will all be sentenced September 9 in Brooklyn Federal Court.

Attorney Jack Tillem - NOT Arbitrator Jack D. Tillem - Was Suspended From Practicing Law By The Disciplinary Committee For 1 Year, October 2008-October 2009

ALERT:  Attorney Jack Tillem described below by the Departmental Discipline Committee as unethical, and suspended from practicing law in 2008-2009, is NOT - and I repeat, NOT - Arbitrator Jack D. Tillem, an arbitrator for more than 30 years with an impeccable legal background and record.

 Both parties have the same name, are from New York State, and are attorneys, but there is a mixup when the name Jack Tillem is searched on Google.

First, Jack D. Tillem and is a graduate of Columbia Law, Class of 1958. The nefarious Jack Tillem (no middle initial) graduated from NYU in 1962.

Second, Jack D. Tillem has practiced law and arbitration primarily from his office in Hicksville, NY for more than 35 years and years ago in the Bronx. Jack D. Tillem never practiced in Manhattan or Queens. 

The suspended Jack Tillem practiced law in Queens and Manhattan. 

Third, while they may be very distant relatives named after the same ancestor, the two have no relationship. This has been a case of mistaken identity for years.

Please be mindful of this ALERT if you are seeking an experienced Arbitrator. Jack D. Tillem is the man you want, not Jack Tillem, attorney, whose suspension is posted below!

Here is an interesting post from the UFT.org website about the REAL Jack Tillem, Arbitrator Jack D. Tillem, who was a member of the UFT/DOE 3020-a panel for many years:

Due process works for Bronx para

Returns to classroom as rationale for termination ruled ‘fatally flawed’

BY DOROTHY CALLACI | DECEMBER 19, 2013 NEW YORK TEACHER ISSUE

A District 75 paraprofessional in the Bronx who was terminated by the Department of Education in October 2010 is back in the classroom with full back pay and benefits after an arbitrator ruled that the DOE investigation resulting in her firing was “fatally flawed” and that the discharge was not based on “good and sufficient reason after due consideration.”

In filing the grievance, the UFT contended that the DOE violated the paraprofessional’s due-process rights as set out in the collective-bargaining agreement. UFT Special Representative for District 75 Jeff Huart declared the decision a “huge victory that clearly states that the contract is paramount in establishing guidelines that ensure our paras receive their due-process rights.”

The paraprofessional, who asked not to be named, had a five-year, unblemished record when she received the termination notice stating that “you lied to investigators” and notifying her that she had been put on the DOE ineligible list and blocked from any future employment in the city school system.

The determination that she lied was based solely on claims by an investigator with the Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation of the New York City School District. That investigator concluded the paraprofessional had lied after questioning her on two occasions during his investigation of an unrelated case. Arbitrator Jack Tillem charged that the resulting termination was tantamount to the investigator “morphing into judge, jury and executioner.”

In her testimony at the arbitration hearing, Susan Holtzman, the counsel to the District 75 superintendent, acknowledged that she had accepted the special commissioner’s report accusing the paraprofessional of lying without further investigation and had drafted the letter of termination based solely on that report.

In his decision, the arbitrator noted that it was never made clear what the paraprofessional had lied about, nor was she allowed to confront the person who accused her of lying.

“The entire matter,” he wrote, “is marinated in hearsay.”

Citing the seriousness of Holtzman’s action, which deprived the paraprofessional of her livelihood, Tillem asked, “The question cannot help but nag: Wasn’t the grievant worth a separate investigation culminating in a separate report?”

UFT Grievance Department Director Ellen Gallin Procida characterized the termination as “an egregious lack of due process — a case of guilt by association designed to prove someone else guilty.”

She said the arbitrator’s reversal of the termination “upholds the contract’s guarantee of a paraprofessional’s right to an open-minded and fair investigation under the due-consideration safeguard.”

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

IN THE MATTER OF TILLEM

56 A.D.3d 94 (2008)
865 N.Y.S.2d 78

LINK
In the Matter of JACK TILLEM, an Attorney, Respondent. DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, Petitioner.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
October 14, 2008.

Alan W. Friedberg, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York City (Mady J. Edelstein of counsel), for petitioner.

Jack Tillem, respondent pro se.

ANDRIAS, J.P., FRIEDMAN, GONZALEZ, NARDELLI and CATTERSON, JJ., concur.


OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on December 10, 1962. At all relevant times, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

On January 29, 2007, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee served respondent with formal charges in connection with his conduct towards a client Roger Crowley who had filed a complaint against respondent with the Committee. The four charges alleged that: by threatening suit and then bringing suit against a client and complainant to the Committee, respondent prejudiced the administration of justice in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (5), prejudiced or damaged his client in violation of DR 7-101 (a) (3), and sued merely to harass or maliciously injure another in violation of DR 7-102 (a) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.3, 1200.32, 1200.33) (charge one); by failing to appear on his own motion to dismiss without notice, and by failing to discontinue his lawsuit against Mr. Crowley, he violated DR 1-102 (a) (5) and DR 7-102 (a) (1) (charge two); by neglecting Mr. Crowley's legal matter and failing to return an unearned fee, he violated DR 6-101 (a) (3) and DR 2-110 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30, 1200.15) (charge three); and by engaging in all of the conduct specified, he engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102 (a) (7) (charge four).

Respondent submitted an answer on February 6, 2007, denying all of the charges and alleging that there was never an attorney-client relationship with Crowley; that the complaint was Mr. Crowley's attempt to extort money from him; that the Committee was aware he intended to sue Mr. Crowley but never protested or cautioned him about his intention to sue Mr. Crowley; that the statute of limitations had run on the proceedings; and that the lawsuit was based on fact and was not retaliatory.

The Referee's hearing commenced with the hearing and determination of respondent's motion in limine, which was denied by the Referee except as to respondent's request for an adjournment of proceedings. Thereafter, the Referee held two days of hearings on the charges at which Mr. Crowley testified and 19 exhibits were offered into evidence. Respondent, who appeared pro se, did not testify, called no witnesses, and had one exhibit marked for identification.


[56 A.D.3d 96]
Based upon the evidence before him the Referee found that, in July 2000, Roger Crowley, an architect, received an unsolicited telephone call from a woman representing the Alliance Group offering to help him collect a $2,000 judgment he had obtained in Small Claims Court. After speaking to one John Cooper and receiving some faxed printed matter with the heading "Alliance Partners Group" and "Alliance Legal Access," Mr. Crowley signed a contract with Alliance and paid a $450 fee. Some 60 days later, when he called to find out how the collection was going, Crowley was told by Cooper that the matter had been turned over to the legal staff and Cooper gave him respondent's name and suggested that he call respondent in about 10 days at Alliance. Thereafter, despite numerous conversations with respondent over the course of 2001, in which he gave various excuses for the lack of progress and assured Mr. Crowley that the collection matter would move forward, Mr. Crowley wrote to Cooper and respondent at Alliance's address on January 23, 2002, demanding a refund and telling respondent that he was going to report him to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee.



In response to the letter, respondent called Mr. Crowley and wanted to know why he was being threatened and what Crowley wanted. Crowley told respondent that his $450 fee should be returned because he had received no services for the past year. When asked about Alliance, respondent denied any association with them and told Crowley that if he complained about him he would sue him for whatever he was worth. Although respondent offered to continue helping to collect the debt, Crowley refused and, in February 2002, wrote a letter of complaint to the Committee.

Respondent answered the disciplinary complaint, stating that he did not represent Crowley, and, a few weeks later, respondent served Mr. Crowley with a summons and complaint seeking $1.75 million in compensatory and punitive damages based on his having filed a "bogus complaint with the Departmental Disciplinary Committee . . . all to the [p]laintiff's damage . . . for extortion, damage to the plaintiff's reputation, mental anguish, and business loss." Mr. Crowley appeared pro se and served an answer whereupon respondent served a demand for interrogatories. At that point, Crowley offered to withdraw the disciplinary complaint if respondent terminated the litigation. When no response was received, Crowley withdrew his offer and served an amended answer. Respondent then served Crowley
[56 A.D.3d 97]
with a motion to dismiss returnable July 22, 2002. Crowley prepared a cross motion which he brought to court on the return date. After sitting through the entire calendar call without respondent's motion being called, the court clerk informed Crowley that there was no record of the case. Crowley, who had not spoken to respondent since that February, had received no notice from respondent prior to the return date that the matter was not on the court's calendar.



The Referee found Mr. Crowley "completely credible" and, in rejecting respondent's contention that there was no attorneyclient relationship between the two of them because there was no written document or payment of a fee, found:"[t]he documents indicate the retention of Alliance by Crowley. Respondent admitted sharing offices with Alliance, (admitting that he was a sub-tenant) having a desk and telephone, with his name on the door and paying no rent, except rendering legal service in the nature of opinions on collectability of debts. He admitted speaking to Crowley on the phone but never met him. He admitted taking referrals from Alliance and representing them when his own interest was involved e.g. defending an ejectment action against the landlord . . . , and forming a corporation for them. In addition Respondent never gave Crowley an address or phone number other than Alliance's and his pleadings in the Supreme Court action against Crowley contained that same address."

The Referee sustained charge one, finding that respondent had threatened Crowley with a lawsuit and then brought an action against a complainant to the Committee. The Referee concluded that such conduct was adverse to the administration of justice, it prejudiced or damaged a client in the course of a professional relationship, and by filing suit, it was obviously meant to harass or maliciously injure another (DR 1-102 [a] [5]; DR 7-101 [a] [3]; DR 7-102 [a] [1]). The Referee noted that, during his deposition, respondent stated: "I think I sued him because what he did is, he complained here [to the Committee], number one."

In sustaining charge two, the Referee noted that respondent instituted an action and, during the course of it, he served a notice of motion for summary judgment and failed to inform Crowley that it had not been placed on the calendar for the return
[56 A.D.3d 98]
date. Crowley, pro se, sat through the entire calendar call before discovering that the matter was not on, and respondent failed to pursue or discontinue his suit for damages and punitive damages against Crowley. Accordingly the Referee found respondent had violated DR 1-102 (a) (5) and DR 7-102 (a) (1). The Referee also sustained charge four, finding that all of the aforementioned conduct adversely reflected on respondent's fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102 (a) (7).



The Referee did not sustain charge three because he found that there was no proof that respondent participated in the fee paid to Alliance nor that he was personally obligated to return the unearned fee. While there was some evidence that respondent neglected Crowley's collection matter, "over all" the Referee could not sustain all aspects of that charge.

During the sanction phase of the hearing, the Committee introduced as aggravating factors four admonitions previously issued to respondent dating back to 1992, two of which the Referee noted were "particularly relevant." Although the Referee did not elaborate, one admonition respondent received included a specific warning against harassing a debtor respondent was pursuing in violation of DR 7-102 (a) (1), one of the charges sustained by the Referee herein. Another admonition included a finding of a lack of credible evidence for respondent's explanation of his conduct in another matter. In addition the Referee concluded:"[a]nother factor was Respondent's lack of candor with the Committee and at the Hearing. He had many arguments but would not testify under oath. His misunderstanding of the law with respect to [b]urden of proof should have been assuaged after the first session when I informed him that the Court of Appeals had already ruled that the [b]urden was a fair preponderance of the evidence, unless he was attempting to use this case to raise the question again in this Department."He tried to distance himself from the individuals who were Alliance. He said they all used assumed names and he tried to stay away from them, especially after being involved as a material witness for the District Attorney of Duchess County against Alliance. Yet he continued to use their facilities and their address.
[56 A.D.3d 99]
"His accusations of misbehavior by the Staff and his abusive cross-examination of the complaining witness indicated his failure to acknowledge any misconduct on his part."There was no evidence of mitigating factors. Respondent offered no testimony, called no witnesses, offered no character letters, although invited by me to do so, nor produced documentary proof of health problems. In argument, he often referred to his health problems but said, in final argument, that age and health problems should not be considered in mitigation."I find no merit in Respondent's argument that he could not withdraw his action against Crowley without getting into trouble with the Committee. All he had to do was discontinue, without any quid pro quo."I agree with the Staff that a suspension of Respondent is indicated. I also agree with the recommendation of a one year period. Respondent has stated that he is 95% retired and is just winding up some unfinished collection cases. A more severe penalty, under the circumstances, is not necessary. However, the profession has to be reminded that this sort of behavior may not be tolerated. In Matter of Levy, 37 N.Y.2d 279, it was held that while a disciplinary hearing has punitive aspects, the main purpose is the public interest."

A Hearing Panel subsequently heard oral argument and in a report agreed with the Referee's findings on the charges and concurred with the recommended sanction of a one year suspension. The Panel found that respondent's baseless suit against Crowley interfered with the disciplinary process and was intentional conduct that prejudiced a client, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Panel concluded that respondent's conduct in suing Mr. Crowley and then abandoning his motion without notice maximized the burden and inconvenience to a pro se party.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (d) confirming the Referee's and the Hearing Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and sanction recommendation, and suspending respondent from the practice of law for no less than one year.


[56 A.D.3d 100]
Respondent, pro se, opposes the petition in its entirety, arguing, among other things: his demand for discovery and an adjournment was wrongfully denied; prosecutorial misconduct by the Committee; the findings of misconduct were not supported by the credible evidence; reversible errors were committed by the Referee; the complaint was five years old when acted upon and the Committee had prior notice of his intention to sue the complainant but did nothing; and a vigorous defense does not constitute lack of remorse or an admission of guilt as found by the Referee.



In reply, the Committee argues that respondent has restated as "reversible error" virtually every objection and argument made by him and rejected by the Referee and the Hearing Panel, including the claims of wrongful denial of discovery, prosecutorial misconduct, coaching of the witness, and denial of his ability to question Mr. Crowley about his "alternative lifestyle." It points out that, although respondent was given ample opportunity to present his defense, he declined to call any witnesses or to testify on his own behalf, instead offering only one exhibit, a blank Committee complaint form. The Committee also contends that respondent has failed to offer any support for his allegation that the witness's testimony was "doctored" and cites no case law to support his claim that his defenses to the charges are valid or that reversible errors were made. Respondent did not present any evidence in mitigation and, as he did before the Committee, has not offered any legal argument or precedent to support a less severe sanction.

The evidence shows that respondent threatened to sue Mr. Crowley when he advised respondent that he would complain to the Committee about respondent's failure to bring a collection suit on his behalf as promised. Within weeks of receipt of Crowley's disciplinary complaint, respondent followed through with his threat and sued Crowley for $1.75 million specifying that the damages were due to the fact that Mr. Crowley had complained to the Committee about him. Respondent then served Crowley with interrogatories and a motion for summary judgment, which, without notifying Crowley, he never placed on the court calendar.

Although there are no cases directly on point, we find that, in light of numerous aggravating factors, the recommended one year suspension is an appropriate sanction for respondent's intentional harassment of a former client which interfered with the disciplinary process.


[56 A.D.3d 101]
In determining an appropriate sanction, the Referee and Hearing Panel properly considered cases involving attorneys who had commenced harassing or frivolous lawsuits against individuals (Matter of Gadye, 283 A.D.2d 1 [2001]; Matter of Yao, 250 A.D.2d 221 [1998]), and attorneys who interfered with the disciplinary process by either asking the complainants to withdraw their disciplinary grievance or offered them money to do so (Matter of Smith, 120 A.D.2d 208 [1986], appeal dismissed and lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 983 [1987];Matter of Goldberg, 82 A.D.2d 572 [1981]). A case involving an attorney who used harassing tactics against a pro se party in violation of the Code was also considered (Matter of Heller, 9 A.D.3d 221 [2004],lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 607 [2004]).



In addition, the Referee concluded that there were several factors in aggravation and no factors in mitigation. Respondent's disciplinary history consisted of four prior admonitions (one of which included a warning against harassing a debtor), he showed no remorse and failed to acknowledge his misconduct as evidenced by his "abusive" cross examination of the witness, and he lacked candor with the Committee and before the Referee. The one year suspension on balance is a sufficient sanction for the misconduct at issue and gives notice to thebar that this behavior will not be tolerated.

Accordingly, the petition should be granted, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Referee and the Hearing Panel and the recommended sanction should be confirmed, and respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for a period of one year and until further order of this Court.

Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for a period of one year, effective the date hereof and until further order of this Court.