In re Fineberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Fineberg

28 A.D.3d 48, 807 N.Y.S.2d 901

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 48 (In re Fineberg) 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 Fineberg, 28 A.D.3d 48, 807 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

[49]*49Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 10, 1991, and was formerly employed in Buffalo. Respondent currently resides out of state. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct based upon his repeated failure to comply with attorney registration requirements. Respondent failed to file an answer to the petition. The Grievance Committee thereafter filed a motion for an order finding respondent in default. Respondent filed no papers in response to the motion and did not appear before this Court on the return date of the petition. Consequently, we find respondent in default and deem the allegations of the petition to be admitted.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5])—engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7])—engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer.

We have considered, in mitigation, that respondent has satisfied outstanding attorney registration fees. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured.

Scudder, J.P., Gorski, Green, Pine and Hayes, JJ., concur. Order of censure entered.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

[49]*49Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 10, 1991, and was formerly employed in Buffalo. Respondent currently resides out of state. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct based upon his repeated failure to comply with attorney registration requirements. Respondent failed to file an answer to the petition. The Grievance Committee thereafter filed a motion for an order finding respondent in default. Respondent filed no papers in response to the motion and did not appear before this Court on the return date of the petition. Consequently, we find respondent in default and deem the allegations of the petition to be admitted.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5])—engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7])—engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer.

We have considered, in mitigation, that respondent has satisfied outstanding attorney registration fees. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured.

Scudder, J.P., Gorski, Green, Pine and Hayes, JJ., concur. Order of censure entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 48, 807 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fineberg-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack