In re Holland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Holland

108 A.D.2d 63, 488 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48381

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

DecidedApril 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 108 A.D.2d 63 (In re Holland) 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 Holland, 108 A.D.2d 63, 488 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on March 16, 1966.

On July 12, 1983, respondent was convicted in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, upon his plea of guilty, to interstate transportation of property taken by fraud in violation of 18 USC §§ 2314, 2, and conspiracy to defraud the lawful governmental functions of the Internal Revenue Service in violation of 18 USC § 371. Respondent was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, the imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for a period of five years. An express condition of probation was that he perform community service at the rate of 10 hours per week over the next year and one half.

18 USC § 2314 is cognizable in New York as criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, a class D felony (Penal Law § 170.25; Matter of Barbara, 86 AD2d 219; Matter of Kileullen, 55 AD2d 437).

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), upon his conviction of a felony, the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State.

[64]*64Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted. Respondent is disbarred and the clerk of this court is directed to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law forthwith.

Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer, Mangano and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on March 16, 1966.

On July 12, 1983, respondent was convicted in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, upon his plea of guilty, to interstate transportation of property taken by fraud in violation of 18 USC §§ 2314, 2, and conspiracy to defraud the lawful governmental functions of the Internal Revenue Service in violation of 18 USC § 371. Respondent was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, the imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for a period of five years. An express condition of probation was that he perform community service at the rate of 10 hours per week over the next year and one half.

18 USC § 2314 is cognizable in New York as criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, a class D felony (Penal Law § 170.25; Matter of Barbara, 86 AD2d 219; Matter of Kileullen, 55 AD2d 437).

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), upon his conviction of a felony, the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State.

[64]*64Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted. Respondent is disbarred and the clerk of this court is directed to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law forthwith.

Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer, Mangano and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 63, 488 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-holland-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack