OPINION OF THE COURT
Respondent, an attorney, was admitted to practice in the First Judicial Department on December 3, 1956. On July 29, 1969, respondent was convicted in the United States District
Under the clear mandate of Matter of Chu, it is no longer necessary to determine whether New York expressly treats the same conduct in a similar manner. There is nothing in the circumstances underlying the Federal felony conviction herein, nothing of a compelling, mitigating nature which would serve as a basis of substantial merit sufficient to compel distinguishing between the conviction of the Federal felony and conviction in New York State. In light of Matter of Chu (supra) under the circumstances herein, the petition is granted and respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys (see, also, Matter of Peltz, 60 AD2d 587, mot for lv to app den 43 NY2d 844).
Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
Respondent’s name struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York.