In re Holtz

230 A.D.2d 193, 654 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2947
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 18, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 230 A.D.2d 193 (In re Holtz) 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 Holtz, 230 A.D.2d 193, 654 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Stephen L. Holtz was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on January 18, 1982. At all times relevant herein, respondent [194]*194has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

Petitioner Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order determining that respondent has been convicted of a "serious crime” as defined by Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d) and Rules of this Court (22 NYCRR) § 603.12 (b), suspending respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (f) and directing respondent, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (g), to show cause before petitioner, which shall thereupon hold a hearing and issue a report and recommendation, why a final order of censure, suspension or disbarment should not be made.

In support of its petition, petitioner has put forth evidence demonstrating that, on or about May 20, 1996, respondent pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 USC § 1343, a felony under the United States Code. The conviction was based on certain actions respondent took, while serving as an Administrative Law Judge of the New York City Parking Violations Bureau, dismissing or reducing parking summonses for individuals based upon documents which he knew to be false. Respondent was sentenced on or about September 26, 1996 to two years’ probation with four months’ home detention, a fine of $5,000 and a special assessment of $50.

It is clear that the crime of which respondent has been convicted constitutes a serious crime within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d).

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

Related

Matter of Newkirk
141 A.D.3d 178 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
In re Christo
86 A.D.3d 74 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re Klein
28 A.D.3d 102 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re Holtz
239 A.D.2d 24 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 A.D.2d 193, 654 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-holtz-nyappdiv-1997.