In re Gembarosky

208 A.D.2d 118, 623 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2089
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 118 (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, 208 A.D.2d 118, 623 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court on February 16, 1982 and maintained an office for the practice of law in Buffalo until he was suspended on December 23, 1994 [119]*119pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.19 (f) as an immediate threat to the public interest, based on his failure to respond to a judicial subpoena issued in connection with the Grievance Committee’s investigation of an unrelated matter.

The Grievance Committee had previously filed a petition and supplemental petition containing five charges of professional misconduct. Respondent submitted an answer and a Referee was appointed to make findings on the issues of fact raised by those pleadings. Petitioner now moves to confirm the report filed by the Referee.

The Referee found that respondent neglected legal matters, misrepresented the status of a matter to a client, and failed to carry out a contract of employment. We confirm those findings and conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, effective September 1, 1990:

DR 1-102 (A) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4])—by engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation;
DR 6-101 (A) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30 [a] [3])—by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him; and
DR 7-101 (A) (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.32 [a] [2])—by failing to carry out a contract of employment.

We have considered the matters in mitigation offered by respondent and conclude that he should be suspended for six months from the date of the order entered herein and until further order of this Court.

Pine, J. P., Lawton, Balio, 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

Related

In re Gembarosky
214 A.D.2d 209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
In re Barrett
214 A.D.2d 231 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
208 A.D.2d 118, 623 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gembarosky-nyappdiv-1995.