In re Catalfo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Catalfo

38 A.D.2d 205, 328 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5420

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 205 (In re Catalfo) 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 Catalfo, 38 A.D.2d 205, 328 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to the Bar in the First Judicial Department on December 12,1958. It is charged, and he admits, that he forged a client’s name to a general release settling the client’s claim for $1,300; forged the client’s indorsement to the settlement check; and converted the entire proceeds to his own use. The evidence fully supports the Referee’s findings and his findings are confirmed. In view of the admission of all facts plus the fact that respondent made restitution and other extenuating circumstances, we are inclined to leniency and, accordingly, direct suspension for a period of two years.

Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, McGivern, Nunez and McNally, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for a period of two years effective March 8, 1972.

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

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to the Bar in the First Judicial Department on December 12,1958. It is charged, and he admits, that he forged a client’s name to a general release settling the client’s claim for $1,300; forged the client’s indorsement to the settlement check; and converted the entire proceeds to his own use. The evidence fully supports the Referee’s findings and his findings are confirmed. In view of the admission of all facts plus the fact that respondent made restitution and other extenuating circumstances, we are inclined to leniency and, accordingly, direct suspension for a period of two years.

Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, McGivern, Nunez and McNally, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for a period of two years effective March 8, 1972.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 205, 328 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-catalfo-nyappdiv-1972.