In re Huertas-Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Huertas-Perez

263 A.D.2d 275, 701 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 360

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D.2d 275 (In re Huertas-Perez) 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 Huertas-Perez, 263 A.D.2d 275, 701 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Jose Luis Huertas-Perez was admitted to the [276]*276practice of law by the First Judicial Department on January 11, 1993, and at all times relevant herein has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

Respondent was charged in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with two counts of extortion in violation of 18 USC § 1951 (b) (2), to which he pleaded guilty on or about June 25, 1999. The conviction arose in connection with respondent’s position as a Hearing Officer employed by the Administrative Tribunal of the New York City Department of Health. Respondent took funds from a restaurant in exchange for the reduction of administrative penalties. This taking under color of official right, giving rise to the Federal conviction, is essentially similar to the New York felony of larceny by extortion (Penal Law § 155.05 [2] [e]; Matter of Margiotta, 60 NY2d 147), warranting respondent’s automatic disbarment (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [b]). Hence, the petition seeking an order striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (a) should be granted.

Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ., concur.

Petition granted and respondent disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, as indicated.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Jose Luis Huertas-Perez was admitted to the [276]*276practice of law by the First Judicial Department on January 11, 1993, and at all times relevant herein has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

Respondent was charged in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with two counts of extortion in violation of 18 USC § 1951 (b) (2), to which he pleaded guilty on or about June 25, 1999. The conviction arose in connection with respondent’s position as a Hearing Officer employed by the Administrative Tribunal of the New York City Department of Health. Respondent took funds from a restaurant in exchange for the reduction of administrative penalties. This taking under color of official right, giving rise to the Federal conviction, is essentially similar to the New York felony of larceny by extortion (Penal Law § 155.05 [2] [e]; Matter of Margiotta, 60 NY2d 147), warranting respondent’s automatic disbarment (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [b]). Hence, the petition seeking an order striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (a) should be granted.

Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ., concur.

Petition granted and respondent disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, as indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 275, 701 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-huertas-perez-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack