On Thursday, August 3, 2023, the State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department issued a Memorandum and Order in the matter of Pery D. Krinsky, a suspended attorney. The case involves allegations of the respondent’s neglectful representation of two disciplinary clients in separate dishonored check matters.
The case is entitled “Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department v. Pery D. Krinsky” with case no. PM-164-23.
The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department initiated a sua sponte investigation into the respondent’s conduct in August 2018. His file was then transferred to the Third Judicial Department by May 2019 order. Another matter concerning the respondent’s allegedly deficient representation of a second disciplinary client was transferred to the Third Judicial Department by the May 2020 First Department order.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), petitioned for the respondent’s interim suspension due to his uncooperative nature in the investigations. The Court granted the petition and suspended the respondent by June 2021 order.
The respondent requested a post-suspension hearing, and upon the petitioner’s petition of charges and respondent’s joinder of issue, the petitioner moved for an order declaring that there were no disputed issues of material fact, deeming the misconduct established, and confirming the respondent’s interim suspension. Despite the respondent’s opposition to the petitioner’s motion and his cross-motion for, inter alia, leave to amend his answer and for his conditional reinstatement, the Court granted the petitioner’s motion and confirmed the respondent’s interim suspension by October 2022 order.
The petitioner stated that the respondent should be disbarred based on his failure to respond or otherwise appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of entry of the Court’s suspension order.
The respondent argued that his answers were not “eleventh-hour” responses but the record revealed that he did not take steps to appear before the petitioner or provide the required answers to the two client complaints until after the petitioner moved to disbar him. However, the respondent’s newly expressed willingness to sit for a scheduled examination and to provide additional information to the petitioner is insufficient to demonstrate actual compliance.
The Court stated that the respondent’s newly expressed willingness to sit for a scheduled examination and provide additional information to the petitioner at this time is insufficient to demonstrate actual compliance and does not warrant the discontinuance of the instant proceeding. Accordingly, the Court granted the petitioner’s motion to disbar the respondent.
The Dispositon states:
“ORDERED that petitioner’s motion is granted, and it is further ORDERED that respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York, effective immediately.”
Mr. Krinsky was admitted to practice law in New York in 2002 and had a law practice in Manhattan primarily focused on defending other attorneys in professional misconduct matters. His info can be found on martindale.com.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.