In re Hartman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Hartman

61 A.D.2d 194, 401 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9720

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 194 (In re Hartman) 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 Hartman, 61 A.D.2d 194, 401 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

[195]*195OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on June 16, 1965. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the retired Justice of the Supreme Court to whom the issues were referred for hearing and report.

The Referee sustained six charges of professional misconduct against the respondent as follows: (1) neglecting a workmen’s compensation claim, settling a third-party liability action without authorization, and failing to account for the proceeds of a settlement; (2) violating his duty as a notary public in connection with the execution of a release; (3) after filing a retainer statement with the Office of Court Administration, failing to file a closing statement; (4) failing to cooperate with the Nassau County Bar Association and the petitioner in their respective investigations of the above-mentioned complaints; (5) neglecting a matrimonial matter and not accounting for a fee of $375 paid to him; and (6) failing to co-operate with the petitioner in its investigation of the last-stated complaint.

After reviewing all of the evidence we are in accord with the findings of the Referee. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report is granted.

The respondent is adjudged guilty of serious professional misconduct and should be, and he hereby is, disbarred from further practice of law, and his name is ordered removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law, effective forthwith.

Mollen P. J. Hopkins, Latham, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

[195]*195OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on June 16, 1965. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the retired Justice of the Supreme Court to whom the issues were referred for hearing and report.

The Referee sustained six charges of professional misconduct against the respondent as follows: (1) neglecting a workmen’s compensation claim, settling a third-party liability action without authorization, and failing to account for the proceeds of a settlement; (2) violating his duty as a notary public in connection with the execution of a release; (3) after filing a retainer statement with the Office of Court Administration, failing to file a closing statement; (4) failing to cooperate with the Nassau County Bar Association and the petitioner in their respective investigations of the above-mentioned complaints; (5) neglecting a matrimonial matter and not accounting for a fee of $375 paid to him; and (6) failing to co-operate with the petitioner in its investigation of the last-stated complaint.

After reviewing all of the evidence we are in accord with the findings of the Referee. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report is granted.

The respondent is adjudged guilty of serious professional misconduct and should be, and he hereby is, disbarred from further practice of law, and his name is ordered removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law, effective forthwith.

Mollen P. J. Hopkins, Latham, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 194, 401 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hartman-nyappdiv-1978.