PER CURIAM — The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (hereinafter the petitioner) served the respondent with a verified petition dated March 21, 2017, containing six charges of professional misconduct. The respondent filed a verified answer dated April 21, 2017. After the petitioner served and filed a Statement of Disputed and Undisputed Facts, and the respondent served his papers in response, this Court, by decision and order on application dated June 9, 2017, appointed a Special Referee to conduct a hearing. By decision and order on motion dated January 18, 2018, the petitioner was granted leave to amend charges one and two of the verified petition. Thereafter, the parties filed a Joint Statement of Disputed and Undisputed Facts dated March 30, 2018. Following pre-hearing conferences conducted on March 29, 2019, and May 8, 2019, and hearings held on June 20, 2019, July 10, 2019, July 11, 2019, and July 25, 2019, the Special Referee issued a report dated September 11, 2019, in which he sustained all six charges. The petitioner now moves to confirm the report of the Special Referee and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and appropriate. The respondent’s counsel submitted opposition papers to the petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee, and requests, inter alia, that the matter be referred for a re-hearing before another Special Referee. Based upon the respondent’s admissions and the evidence adduced at the hearing, we find that although the Special Referee improperly sustained factual specifications alleged in paragraphs 12(a) through 12(c) and 12(e) of charge one, he properly sustained charge one insofar as he sustained the factual specifications alleged in paragraphs numbered 1 through 11, 12(d), and 13 through 17, and charges 2 through 6, and all charges are sustained. The Petition Charge one, as amended, alleges that the respondent violated his fiduciary duties and misappropriated funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary, in violation of former DR 9-102(a) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (22 NYCRR 1200.46[a]), as follows: In or around May 2007, the respondent represented the seller Ernestine Wooten-Kolajo and/or Robert Wooten (hereinafter the client) in the sale of property located in Brooklyn (hereinafter the Brooklyn property) to Stanley Pasula of Boynton Beach, Florida. There was no real estate broker involved in this transaction. The respondent prepared the contract of sale for the Brooklyn property, which provided for a sales price of $730,000, with no down payment. On May 31, 2007, the respondent appeared on behalf of the client at the closing on the sale of the Brooklyn property, and received a $598,194.31 check, representing all or a portion of the net proceeds of sale due the client (hereafter the Wooten/Kolajo funds). Following the closing, the respondent, as a fiduciary, deposited the Wooten/Kolajo funds into his attorney escrow account at JP Morgan Chase Bank, account ending in 5965. While entrusted with the Wooten/Kolajo funds, the respondent disbursed escrow check #3235 dated June 20, 2007, in the sum of $58,500 to himself, without permission or authorization from his client. Between June 14, 2007, and September 18, 2007, the respondent disbursed an additional $125,000 from his escrow account, as follows: DateCheck#PayeeAmount 6/14/073223Edward J. Grossman$10,000 6/20/073232John Arweiler, Esq.$30,000 6/20/073233Edward J. Grossman$25,000 9/18/073268Edward J. Grossman, as attorney$60,000
Between June 5, 2007, and June 9, 2008, the respondent disbursed $188,000 from his escrow account to Robert Wooten (hereinafter Wooten), as follows: DateTransactionAmount 6/05/07bank transfer$20,000 7/02/08bank transfer$40,000 1/25/08wire transfer$15,000 2/27/08bank transfer$ 8,000 4/15/08bank transfer$16,000 6/09/08bank transfer$89,000
