In re Berger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Berger

248 A.D.2d 887, 669 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2813

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 887 (In re Berger) 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 Berger, 248 A.D.2d 887, 669 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1984. He has maintained a law office in New Jersey, where he was admitted in 1977.

[888]*888The Supreme Court of New Jersey suspended respondent for a period of two years, effective November 12, 1997. Petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, moves to reciprocally discipline respondent pursuant to section 806.19 of this Court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has submitted an affidavit in reply to the motion.

The papers in support of petitioner’s motion show that, in 1988, while he was a partner in a New Jersey firm, respondent submitted insurance claims on behalf of the firm after fire damaged the firm’s office space and contents. The New Jersey disciplinary authorities found that respondent had forged a lease for alternate rental office space (which was never used) and submitted it to the firm’s insurance agent with the intent to defraud the law firm’s insurance carrier with respect to relocation expenses and that he had falsely witnessed the signature of the firm’s landlord on a release submitted to an insurance company. The New Jersey authorities considered the same explanations and mitigating circumstances offered by respondent in his affidavit submitted to this Court.

Under the circumstances presented, we grant petitioner’s motion and conclude that the ends of justice will be served by imposing upon respondent the same discipline in this State as was imposed in New Jersey, effective November 12, 1997.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is fiirther ordered that respondent is suspended for a period of two years, effective November 12, 1997, and until further, order of this Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and he is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, or tó give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of section 806.9 (22 NYCRR 806.9) of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys.

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

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1984. He has maintained a law office in New Jersey, where he was admitted in 1977.

[888]*888The Supreme Court of New Jersey suspended respondent for a period of two years, effective November 12, 1997. Petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, moves to reciprocally discipline respondent pursuant to section 806.19 of this Court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has submitted an affidavit in reply to the motion.

The papers in support of petitioner’s motion show that, in 1988, while he was a partner in a New Jersey firm, respondent submitted insurance claims on behalf of the firm after fire damaged the firm’s office space and contents. The New Jersey disciplinary authorities found that respondent had forged a lease for alternate rental office space (which was never used) and submitted it to the firm’s insurance agent with the intent to defraud the law firm’s insurance carrier with respect to relocation expenses and that he had falsely witnessed the signature of the firm’s landlord on a release submitted to an insurance company. The New Jersey authorities considered the same explanations and mitigating circumstances offered by respondent in his affidavit submitted to this Court.

Under the circumstances presented, we grant petitioner’s motion and conclude that the ends of justice will be served by imposing upon respondent the same discipline in this State as was imposed in New Jersey, effective November 12, 1997.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is fiirther ordered that respondent is suspended for a period of two years, effective November 12, 1997, and until further, order of this Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and he is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, or tó give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of section 806.9 (22 NYCRR 806.9) of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 887, 669 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-berger-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack