On Thursday, October 27,  2022, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Judicial Department ruled on Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC) motion requesting the Court to declare that no factual issues have been raised by the pleadings and finding that respondent New York City attorney Pery D. Krinsky had engaged in professional misconduct and confirm his interim suspension.

The case titled ‘In the Matter of Pery D. Krinsky, a Suspended Attorney was brought by the Attorney Grievance Commission for the Third Judicial Department, case no. PM-175-22.

The charges cited Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which provide:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The New York Rules of Professional conduct can be found here.

The following are as alleged and summarized from the filing:

On June 2021, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law during the pendency of the investigations against him for failure to cooperate with AGC’s ensuing investigations and requests for information and documentation. Respondent requested a post suspension hearing. AGC was directed to file a petition of charges regarding the allegations of noncooperation giving rise to his interim suspension.

The order states:

“In July 2021, AGC commenced this proceeding alleging, in a single charge, that respondent had engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rules of ProfessionalConduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 8.4 (d) by failing”to cooperate with petitioner in its investigations” of two complaints of professional conduct. The respondent joined issue and the parties thereafter each filed a statement of disputed and undisputed facts.”

The Order continues:

“AGC subsequently moved for an order declaring that no factual issues have been raised by the parties’ pleadings, finding that respondent had engaged in professional misconduct and confirming his interim suspension. Respondent opposedAGC’smotion and cross-moved for, among other things, leave to amend his pleadings and for his conditional reinstatement.”

The Order further notes:

“Nevertheless, respondent continues to admit to his failure to cooperate and seeks only to amend his pleadings to include his assertion that his recently diagnosed medical condition rendered his lack of cooperation unintentional. Respondent’s mental state, however, is not relevant here, in as much as an interim suspension may be imposed during the pendency of an investigation “upon a finding by the Court that the respondent has engaged in conduct immediately threatening the public interest,” which may be based upon respondent’s”failure to comply with a lawful demand of the [AGC] in an investigation or proceeding.”

With the foregoing facts and discussions, the court ruled against the Respondent in relation to the above-cited Rule of Professional Conduct.

The Disposition reads:

“ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for a declaration that no factual issues have been raised by the pleadings is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is found guilty of violating Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 8.4 (d), as specified in the petition of charges; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s current suspension from the practice of law is confirmed and continued until further order of this Court(see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22NYCRR] § 1240.16); and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s cross motion is denied in its entirety.”

Prior to the suspension, Mr. Krinsky served as the principal of  Krinsky, LLC. He graduated from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. Krinsky has been licensed in New York, license no. 4084844. His info can be found on LinkedIn.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.