In re Feldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Feldman

158 A.D.2d 89, 558 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9908

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 1990·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this court on March 13, 1951. He was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on [90] April 9, 1990, upon his plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy (18 USC § 371) to make a false and fraudulent statement to a United States agency in violation of 18 USC § 1001.

On April 18, 1990, this court found that respondent had been convicted of a "serious crime” within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d) and, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (f), temporarily suspended respondent from practice and directed him to show cause why a final order of censure, suspension or disbarment should not be entered. On April 24, 1990, respondent appeared before this court and admitted his conviction. He waived a mitigation hearing, and requested that this court reach its determination of the final discipline to be imposed based upon the record of the criminal proceeding.

Respondent was convicted of participating in a conspiracy in connection with a money laundering scheme. Under New York law, respondent’s conduct could have resulted in a conviction for conspiracy in the fifth degree, a class A misdemeanor (Penal Law § 105.05). Accordingly, we find respondent guilty of serious professional misconduct.

We conclude that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, effective as of April 18,1990, and until further order of the court.

Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ., concur.

Final order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (g).

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 the practice of law by this court on March 13, 1951. He was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on [90] April 9, 1990, upon his plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy (18 USC § 371) to make a false and fraudulent statement to a United States agency in violation of 18 USC § 1001.

On April 18, 1990, this court found that respondent had been convicted of a "serious crime” within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d) and, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (f), temporarily suspended respondent from practice and directed him to show cause why a final order of censure, suspension or disbarment should not be entered. On April 24, 1990, respondent appeared before this court and admitted his conviction. He waived a mitigation hearing, and requested that this court reach its determination of the final discipline to be imposed based upon the record of the criminal proceeding.

Respondent was convicted of participating in a conspiracy in connection with a money laundering scheme. Under New York law, respondent’s conduct could have resulted in a conviction for conspiracy in the fifth degree, a class A misdemeanor (Penal Law § 105.05). Accordingly, we find respondent guilty of serious professional misconduct.

We conclude that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, effective as of April 18,1990, and until further order of the court.

Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ., concur.

Final order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (g).

In re Feldman, 158 A.D.2d 89, 558 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

158 A.D.2d 89 (In re Feldman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related