Matter of Schlossberg (2020 NY Slip Op 07712) Matter of Schlossberg 2020 NY Slip Op 07712 Decided on December 22, 2020 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided and Entered: December 22, 2020 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial Department David Friedman,J.P., Judith J. Gische Ellen Gesmer Peter H. Moulton Manuel J. Mendez, JJ. Motion No. 2020-03313, 2020-03430 Case No. 2020-03248 [*1]In the Matter of Aaron M. Schlossberg (admitted as Aaron Morris Schlossberg), an attorney and counselor-at law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Aaron M. Schlossberg(OCA Atty. Registration No. 4157012), Respondent. Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Third Judicial Department on July 23, 2003. Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Kevin M. Doyle, of counsel), for petitioner. Matthew Bryant, Esq., for respondent. Per Curiam Respondent Aaron M. Schlossberg was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Third Judicial Department on July 23, 2003, under the name Aaron Morris Schlossberg. At all times relevant to this proceeding, he maintained a law office within the First Judicial Department. In July 2020, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) filed a Petition of Charges alleging that, in May 2018, respondent unleashed a verbal tirade in a Manhattan delicatessen that was so offensive as to rise to the level of professional misconduct. The parties now jointly move under the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.8(a)(5) for discipline by consent and ask this Court to impose a public censure. By cross motion, respondent requests that this Court seal his personal audio-visual recordings of the subject incident, which are included as an exhibit to the Petition of Charges. The motion for discipline by consent is supported by a joint affirmation containing a statement of facts, conditional admissions of professional misconduct, factors in aggravation and mitigation, and agreed upon discipline, as well as respondent's affidavit acknowledging his admission to the stipulated facts, his freely and voluntarily given consent to the agreed-upon discipline, and his full awareness of the consequences of such consent (22 NYCRR 1240.8[a][5][i] and [ii]). The parties stipulated to the following facts: On May 15, 2018, respondent went to an establishment in Manhattan known as "Fresh Kitchen" to order a sandwich. Respondent heard a counter worker, Adrian Luna, conversing in Spanish with patron Santo Castillo. Respondent loudly confronted them for not speaking in English which included telling Castillo to "get the [expletive omitted] out of my country." He also asked Castillo, "Why don't you speak English?" "What do you have against my country?" "What's wrong with you?" and "Why don't you like English?" Respondent also told Castillo to "Get a [expletive omitted] ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals