In re Gembarosky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Gembarosky

207 A.D.2d 75, 621 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13639

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 75 (In re Gembarosky) 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 Gembarosky, 207 A.D.2d 75, 621 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court on [76]*76February 16, 1982. The Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District has filed a motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.19 (f) to suspend respondent from the practice of law pending the determination of nine disciplinary charges, asserting that respondent is guilty of misconduct immediately threatening the public interest and that respondent failed to respond to a judicial subpoena directing him to appear and answer a complaint.

The complaint alleges that respondent’s client delivered to respondent funds to be held in escrow pending the resolution of a dispute. Respondent was discharged but failed to remit the funds after being instructed to do so by the client’s new attorney. Thereafter, respondent failed to appear before the Grievance Committee when served with a judicial subpoena. Petitioner also asserts that attempts to contact respondent by telephone were unsuccessful because his phone was disconnected. Additionally, respondent has failed to answer this motion or to appear before this Court.

Accordingly, we determine that respondent is guilty of misconduct immediately threatening the public interest (22 NYCRR 1022.19 [f] [2] [a]) and conclude that he should be suspended pending the hearing and determination of this disciplinary proceeding.

Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Davis and Boehm, 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 this Court on [76]*76February 16, 1982. The Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District has filed a motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.19 (f) to suspend respondent from the practice of law pending the determination of nine disciplinary charges, asserting that respondent is guilty of misconduct immediately threatening the public interest and that respondent failed to respond to a judicial subpoena directing him to appear and answer a complaint.

The complaint alleges that respondent’s client delivered to respondent funds to be held in escrow pending the resolution of a dispute. Respondent was discharged but failed to remit the funds after being instructed to do so by the client’s new attorney. Thereafter, respondent failed to appear before the Grievance Committee when served with a judicial subpoena. Petitioner also asserts that attempts to contact respondent by telephone were unsuccessful because his phone was disconnected. Additionally, respondent has failed to answer this motion or to appear before this Court.

Accordingly, we determine that respondent is guilty of misconduct immediately threatening the public interest (22 NYCRR 1022.19 [f] [2] [a]) and conclude that he should be suspended pending the hearing and determination of this disciplinary proceeding.

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

Order of suspension entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 75, 621 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gembarosky-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack