On Wednesday, February 22, 2023, the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Judicial Development publicly censured attorney Jonathan S. Rudnick.
The case is entitled “In the matter of Jonathan S. Rudnick” with case no. 2021-06592.
On March 25, 2022, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reprimanded the respondent based on formal ethics complaints. The respondent commenced an action on behalf of the client alleging consumer fraud, misrepresentations for selling a damaged vehicle, and breach of warranty against the dealer/manufacturer. However, in the course of the case, the respondent failed to serve answers on the manufacturer, that later on led to the case being dismissed.
When the client inquired to the respondent about the status of the case, the respondent informed him that the dealer was out of business and that the case against the manufacturer had been dismissed. The respondent withheld from the client that the case had been dismissed because of his own fault.
The filing states:
“In October 2017, when Lampman contacted the respondent to inquire about the status of his case, the respondent informed him that the dealer was out of business and that the case against the manufacturer had been dismissed.. The respondent withheld from Lampman that the case against the manufacturer had been dismissed based on the respondent’s failure to reply to the interrogatories and falsely claimed that the entire case had been dismissed because the dealer had gone out of business. By virtue of the foregoing, the respondent conceded that he made a misrepresentation to Lampman.”
The filing continues:
“The respondent thereafter returned $600 to Lampman, which constituted the $850 retainer less the $250 that it cost to file the complaint. Thereafter, Lampman contacted the court and learned that his case against the manufacturer had been dismissed for the respondent’s failure to respond to the interrogatories, and Lampman consequently filed the underlying grievance complaint against the respondent. Ultimately, Lampman was able to trade in his damaged car for a new vehicle.”
By order, the respondent was reprimanded by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Consistent with the findings of the latter, the New York Supreme Court ordered the respondent to show cause why an order should not be made, imposing the same discipline against him in New York. The respondent did not assert any defenses and consented to the imposition of discipline by the Court.
The Disposition states:
“ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, the respondent, Jonathan S. Rudnick, admitted as Jonathan Rudnick, is publicly censured.”
Mr. Rudnick practices in Tinton Falls, New Jersey. He is licensed in New York and New Jersey with licensed no. 2381838. His info can be found on lawyers.justia.com.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
