Case Name: In the Matter of Robert A. Schachter (Admitted as Robert Alan Schachter), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-12-16
Citations: 125 A.D.3d 28
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Robert A. Schachter (Admitted as Robert Alan Schachter), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.
Judges: Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 28–30

Head Matter:
[996 NYS2d 914]
In the Matter of Robert A. Schachter (Admitted as Robert Alan Schachter), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.
First Department,
December 16, 2014
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York City CNorma I. Lopez of counsel), for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
Respondent Robert A. Schachter was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on October 22, 1975, under the name Robert Alan Schachter. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department. Respondent has not appeared in this proceeding.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order disbarring respondent, pursuant to Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 603.4 (g), because he has been suspended under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (iii) and has not appeared or applied to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement within six months from the date of the order of suspension, which was October 11, 2012 (100 AD3d 45 [2012]). We suspended respondent from the practice of law for misappropriating over $100,000 belonging to his former law firm for his own personal benefit without permission or authority to do so.
The Committee served respondent with the instant motion by first-class and certified mail, return receipt requested, to his counsel, yet he has not submitted a response. Because more than six months has elapsed since this Court's October 11, 2012 order of suspension, and respondent has not sought a hearing or reinstatement, disbarment is warranted (see Matter of Ayu, 123 AD3d 44 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Seaborn, 121 AD3d 11 [1st Dept 2014]).
Accordingly, the Committee's motion to disbar respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ., concur.
Respondent disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof.