In re Golkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Golkin

218 A.D.2d 375, 638 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1803

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 218 A.D.2d 375 (In re Golkin) 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 Golkin, 218 A.D.2d 375, 638 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on September 16, 1970 and maintains an office in Niagara [376]*376Falls. The Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District has filed a motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.19 (f) (2) to suspend respondent from the practice of law pending the determination of disciplinary charges, based upon respondent’s default in responding to a judicial subpoena duces tecum and uncontroverted evidence of misconduct immediately threatening the public interest. The complaints allege, and the uncontroverted evidence submitted by petitioner shows, that respondent engaged in a continuing course of misconduct whereby he induced clients to entrust him with money for investment purposes and used their funds to repay other clients whose money he had accepted under the same pretense. Respondent has failed to respond to a judicial subpoena duces tecum and has defaulted in answering this motion. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent is guilty of misconduct immediately threatening the public interest (22 NYCRR 1022.19 [fl [2] [i] [a]) and that he should be suspended until further order of the Court.

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

Order of suspension entered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.19 (f> (2).

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 September 16, 1970 and maintains an office in Niagara [376]*376Falls. The Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District has filed a motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.19 (f) (2) to suspend respondent from the practice of law pending the determination of disciplinary charges, based upon respondent’s default in responding to a judicial subpoena duces tecum and uncontroverted evidence of misconduct immediately threatening the public interest. The complaints allege, and the uncontroverted evidence submitted by petitioner shows, that respondent engaged in a continuing course of misconduct whereby he induced clients to entrust him with money for investment purposes and used their funds to repay other clients whose money he had accepted under the same pretense. Respondent has failed to respond to a judicial subpoena duces tecum and has defaulted in answering this motion. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent is guilty of misconduct immediately threatening the public interest (22 NYCRR 1022.19 [fl [2] [i] [a]) and that he should be suspended until further order of the Court.

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

Order of suspension entered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.19 (f> (2).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 A.D.2d 375, 638 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-golkin-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack