OPINION OF THE COURT
Respondent Howard S. Ripps was admitted to the practice of
On or about September 9, 1993, respоndent was served with a notice and statement of charges. Three supplemental notices and statements of charges were served dated April 8, 1994, October 13, 1994 and February 7, 1995. The charges allege that respondent engaged in a pattern of neglect of clients’ cases over several years, in some instances causing his clients to default on their actions. Respondent was also charged with improperly withdrawing from a criminal case by abandoning his client without submitting a proper motion, as explicitly directed by the court. He also was сharged with failing to promptly deliver the files to his client’s new attorney. Respondent was further charged with falsely telling his client that her case in Bronx Supreme Court was still pending and ready to be tried when he knew it had already been dismissed. Respondent served opposing counsel in that action with a motion to vacate a dismissal ordеr in which he falsely affirmed that the reason he had not opposed their motion to dismiss was because the mоtion was lost in his office. By engaging in the aforementioned misconduct, respondent was charged with violating Codе of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (A) (4), (5) and (7) (now [8]), DR 2-110 (A) (1) and DR 9-102 (C) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3, 1200.15, 1200.46).
On or about December 23,1993, respondent served an answer in which he dеnied that five of the complainants were his clients.
A Hearing Panel heard testimony on five dates and recеived evidence relating to the charges and as to sanction. The hearings, in which the respondent was represented by counsel, resulted in the sustaining of 22 charges pertaining to eight separate legal matters.
The Hearing Panel found that respondent neglected legal matters entrusted to him in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 (A) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30), in that he was retained by John Timlin, Vivian Alonso and Marisa Cozzi, Dennis Whyte, Adele Allen, Marilyn Labriola, Ramdyal Sudial and Maria Fairhurst to handle various legal matters and lawsuits on behalf of those clients and failed to do so оr to apprise them of the correct status of their matters.
Respondent was guilty of engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of DR
Respondent was guilty of withdrawing from employment without permission in violation of DR 2-110 (A) (1), in that he withdrew from a criminal сase in Supreme Court, New York County, but failed to file a motion to be relieved as directed by the court.
Resрondent was guilty of engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of DR 1-102 (A) (5), in that he failеd to notify the Disciplinary Committee by the end of 1992, as directed, as to whether he completed the Allen matter, or giving an explanation as to why he had not done so, and he violated an explicit directive of the сourt by failing to file a motion when withdrawing from a criminal case in Supreme Court, New York County.
Respondent was guilty of fаiling promptly to deliver to a third person, as requested, property in his possession which said person was entitled to receive in violation of DR 9-102 (C) (4), in that he failed to provide the new attorney of clients with their files until a year and one half after they were requested, requiring the new attorney to move for a court order to сompel him to turn over the files;
By virtue of the foregoing findings and conclusions, respondent was also guilty of engaging in conduct which reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102 (A) (7) (now [8]).
In mitigation, the Hearing Panеl considered the testimony of Justices Elbert Hinkson and Gerald Sheindlin, Supreme Court, Bronx County, that respondent reprеsents his clients with the utmost professionalism and enjoys an excellent reputation as a trial lawyer. The Hearing Panel also considered respondent’s testimony that he is afflicted with Epstein-Barr disease and sleep apnea, for which he has been undergoing medical treatment.
In aggravation, the Hearing Panel considered two letters of admonition issued to respondent on October 4, 1990 and December 30, 1992 for neglecting two legal mаtters.
The Panel then recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for а period of one year.
While we agree with the Hearing Panel as to its findings and conclusions, we cannot аgree with the recommended sanction.
Accordingly, the Committee’s motion to confirm the Hearing Panеl’s report as to findings and conclusions should be granted, but the Panel’s recommendation is disaffirmed, and the respоndent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, effective immediately.
Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ., concur.
The petition is granted to the extent of confirming the Hearing Panel’s report as to the findings and conclusions, but the Panel’s recommendation is disaffirmed, and respondent is suspended from thе practice of law in the State of New York for a period of three years, effective January 7, 1997, and until the further order of this Court.