Matter of Seri
156 A.D.3d 47
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Respondent Gnoleba Seri (admitted as Gnoleba Remy Seri) pleaded guilty in federal court on June 29, 2016 to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) (fraud and misuse of visas/documents) for submitting falsified I-864 affidavits from ~Oct 2012 to Apr 2015.
- Federal sentence imposed Oct 28, 2016: time served, two years supervised release (including 12 months home confinement), 100 hours community service, $3,000 fine, $100 special assessment.
- Grievance Committee moved to strike Seri’s name from the New York roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4) based on his felony conviction.
- The Committee argued the federal offense is essentially similar to NY Penal Law § 175.35(1) (offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree), a class E felony.
- Seri opposed, arguing lack of Appellate Division jurisdiction (claimed different office location) and that the federal offense lacks an element equivalent to NY law (intent to defraud the State).
- The Court found it had jurisdiction (respondent’s registered OCA address is in Brooklyn) and that the federal offense is essentially similar to the NY felony; ordered disbarment effective June 29, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to impose discipline | OCA registration and 22 NYCRR support Appellate Division jurisdiction | Seri: maintained office elsewhere; court lacks jurisdiction | Court: Jurisdiction exists based on registered Brooklyn address; motion proceeds |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) is essentially similar to NY felony | Committee: federal visa-fraud mirrors NY offering a false instrument for filing (Penal Law § 175.35(1)) | Seri: § 175.35(1) requires intent to defraud the State, not an element of § 1546(a) | Court: Core conduct is willful filing of false statements in government office; statutes essentially similar |
| Whether felony conviction mandates striking name under Judiciary Law § 90(4) | Committee: conviction of a felony that is essentially similar requires automatic disbarment | Seri: contests similarity; otherwise implicit challenge to disbarment | Court: Because federal offense is essentially similar, Judiciary Law § 90(4) requires disbarment; motion granted |
| Remedies and post-disbarment obligations | Committee: request disbarment and usual compliance directives | Seri: (no alternative remedy requested) | Court: Ordered name stricken, disbarment effective 6/29/2016, compliance with suspension/disbarment rules and surrender of court pass |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Margiotta, 60 N.Y.2d 147 (explaining "essential similarity" test for out-of-state felonies)
- Matter of Chu, 42 N.Y.2d 490 (defining core offense as willful filing of false statements with knowledge)
- Matter of Tsirlina, 127 A.D.3d 1 (finding § 1546(a) essentially similar to Penal Law § 175.35(1))
- Matter of Gupta, 123 A.D.3d 164 (same)
- Matter of Mengfei Yu, 117 A.D.3d 143 (same)
- Matter of Archer, 86 A.D.3d 131 (same)
- Matter of Collazo, 81 A.D.3d 220 (same)
- Matter of Evans, 58 A.D.3d 164 (same)