Motion List released on: January 8, 2020
By Mastro, J.P.; Rivera, Dillon, Balkin and Maltese, JJ. MATTER of Sophia Rutty, admitted as Sophia Annmarie Rutty, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, petitioner; Sophia Rutty, res — (Attorney Registration No. 3067147) — Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District to immediately suspend the respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(2), (3) and (5), upon a finding that she is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest, and to refer the issues raised, pursuant to 1240.9(c) to a Special Referee, to hear and report. Separate motion by the Grievance Committee, pursuant to CPLR 3022, to strike the verified answer dated May 28, 2019. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department on July 24, 2000, under the name Sophia Annmarie Rutty. Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, inter alia, to immediately suspend the respondent from the practice of law and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the motion pursuant to CPLR 3022, to strike the verified answer and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion to immediately suspend the respondent, Sophia Rutty, admitted as Sophia Annmarie Rutty, from the practice of law, and to refer the issues raised to a Special Referee, to hear and report, is granted; and it is further, ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(5), the respondent, Sophia Rutty, admitted as Sophia Annmarie Rutty, is immediately suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pending further order of the Court; and it is further, ORDERED that the respondent, Sophia Rutty, admitted as Sophia Annmarie Rutty, shall promptly comply with this Court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15); and it is further, ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, during the period of suspension and until further order of this Court, the respondent, Sophia Rutty, admitted as Sophia Annmarie Rutty, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further, ORDERED that if the respondent, Sophia Rutty, admitted as Sophia Annmarie Rutty, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency and the respondent shall certify to the same in her affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f); and it is further, ORDERED that the issues raised are referred to Kevin J. Plunkett, 22 Birch Way, Tarrytown, New York, 10591-4602, as Special Referee, to hear and report, with the hearing to be completed within 60 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, or as soon thereafter as practicable, and to submit a report, which contains his findings on the issues and charges, within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further, ORDERED that the motion to strike the verified answer dated May 28, 2019, is denied. We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based on the uncontroverted evidence that she misappropriated estate funds entrusted to her as a fiduciary. On September 1, 2017, the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Regine C. Bruny. Therein, Bruny stated that, in January 2010, her mother had passed away, and her family received a $25,000 check, the proceeds of her mother’s life insurance policy, payable to her mother, since no beneficiary was listed on the policy. In July 2010, Bruny retained the respondent to have an administrator appointed for her mother’s estate, so the life insurance policy proceeds could be distributed. Bruny gave the respondent the $25,000 check, and she claims that the respondent assured her that the check would be placed in an escrow account, and that once the court appointed the administrator, the respondent would return the escrow money minus her $1,500 fee. On May 9, 2016, Bruny was appointed as a voluntary administrator for her mother’s estate. After waiting seven months, as instructed by the Surrogate’s Court, Bruny contacted the respondent to obtain a check for the life insurance proceeds. When the respondent failed to distribute the life insurance proceeds, Bruny filed the grievance complaint.
