In re Batalla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Batalla

205 A.D.2d 66, 618 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10530

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 66 (In re Batalla) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Batalla, 205 A.D.2d 66, 618 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[67]*67OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law at the First Judicial Department in 1986, under the name Pedro J. Batalla, Jr., and has maintained an office for such purpose within this Department at all relevant times since then.

In February 1994 respondent was convicted in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on his plea of guilty to attempting to evade taxes by filing a false income tax return. The charge related to underreporting income on his Federal tax returns for 1990 and 1991, his first full years in private practice. On May 4 he was sentenced to serve one year probation, pay a fine of $2,000 and an assessment of $50, and make restitution to the Internal Revenue Service. According to respondent, the fines and restitution have been satisfied.

An attempt to evade taxes is a felony under Federal law (26 USC § 7201). Since there is no felony analog for this offense under New York law, it qualifies as a "serious crime” under Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d) (Matter of Winograd, 148 AD2d 214). As such, the certification to this Court of respondent’s conviction requires his immediate interim suspension from the practice of law (§ 90 [4] [f]). Respondent concedes the serious crime designation of his offense, but wishes to offer evidence in mitigation of the disciplinary sanction to be imposed.

Accordingly, the petition is granted, respondent is suspended from practice forthwith, and he is directed to show cause before petitioner’s Hearing Panel, within 30 days of this Court’s order, why a final order of suspension or other appropriate disciplinary measure should not be entered against him (§ 90 [4] [g]).

Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ., concur.

The application is granted, and respondent is suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York forthwith, and until the further order of this Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[67]*67OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law at the First Judicial Department in 1986, under the name Pedro J. Batalla, Jr., and has maintained an office for such purpose within this Department at all relevant times since then.

In February 1994 respondent was convicted in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on his plea of guilty to attempting to evade taxes by filing a false income tax return. The charge related to underreporting income on his Federal tax returns for 1990 and 1991, his first full years in private practice. On May 4 he was sentenced to serve one year probation, pay a fine of $2,000 and an assessment of $50, and make restitution to the Internal Revenue Service. According to respondent, the fines and restitution have been satisfied.

An attempt to evade taxes is a felony under Federal law (26 USC § 7201). Since there is no felony analog for this offense under New York law, it qualifies as a "serious crime” under Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d) (Matter of Winograd, 148 AD2d 214). As such, the certification to this Court of respondent’s conviction requires his immediate interim suspension from the practice of law (§ 90 [4] [f]). Respondent concedes the serious crime designation of his offense, but wishes to offer evidence in mitigation of the disciplinary sanction to be imposed.

Accordingly, the petition is granted, respondent is suspended from practice forthwith, and he is directed to show cause before petitioner’s Hearing Panel, within 30 days of this Court’s order, why a final order of suspension or other appropriate disciplinary measure should not be entered against him (§ 90 [4] [g]).

Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ., concur.

The application is granted, and respondent is suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York forthwith, and until the further order of this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 66, 618 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-batalla-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack