In re Blaney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Blaney

113 A.D.2d 72, 495 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52054

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 A.D.2d 72 (In re Blaney) 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 Blaney, 113 A.D.2d 72, 495 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52054 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, on July 15, 1969 and, at all times mentioned herein, maintained an office for the practice of law in Utica, New York. The uncontroverted allegations of the petition show that respondent on April 3, 1980 deposited in his escrow account the sum of $2,666.69, being funds belonging to his client in a divorce proceeding. Thereafter, respondent made several withdrawals for his personal use and benefit, reducing the balance of the account on May 22, 1980 to $45.65. On May 3, 1982, the account was closed out and, as of that date, no funds had been transferred to the client.

Respondent is guilty of violating 22 NYCRR 1022.5 (a), (b) of this Department’s rules relating to attorneys (commingling and converting a client’s funds and withdrawing moneys for his own use) and Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 9-102 (A), (B) (see, Matter of Richards, 106 AD2d 156; Matter of La Bue, 98 AD2d 84; Matter of LaCava, 53 AD2d 204).

[73]*73After considering the mitigating circumstances, including respondent’s payment in full of the moneys and his otherwise clear record, we conclude that he should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and until further order of this court.

Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Boomer, JJ., concur.

Order of suspension entered.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, on July 15, 1969 and, at all times mentioned herein, maintained an office for the practice of law in Utica, New York. The uncontroverted allegations of the petition show that respondent on April 3, 1980 deposited in his escrow account the sum of $2,666.69, being funds belonging to his client in a divorce proceeding. Thereafter, respondent made several withdrawals for his personal use and benefit, reducing the balance of the account on May 22, 1980 to $45.65. On May 3, 1982, the account was closed out and, as of that date, no funds had been transferred to the client.

Respondent is guilty of violating 22 NYCRR 1022.5 (a), (b) of this Department’s rules relating to attorneys (commingling and converting a client’s funds and withdrawing moneys for his own use) and Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 9-102 (A), (B) (see, Matter of Richards, 106 AD2d 156; Matter of La Bue, 98 AD2d 84; Matter of LaCava, 53 AD2d 204).

[73]*73After considering the mitigating circumstances, including respondent’s payment in full of the moneys and his otherwise clear record, we conclude that he should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and until further order of this court.

Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Boomer, JJ., concur.

Order of suspension entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.2d 72, 495 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-blaney-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack