In re Jonas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jonas

70 A.D.2d 469, 421 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12740

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 A.D.2d 469 (In re Jonas) 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 Jonas, 70 A.D.2d 469, 421 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on December 21, 1955. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Referee to whom the issues were referred for hearing and report.

The Referee found the respondent guilty of violating section 7203 of title 26 of the United States Code, in that for the calendar years 1973 and 1974, the respondent received gross income in such amounts as would require him to file income tax returns and that the respondent knowingly and willfully failed to file income tax returns for said calendar years. It was alleged, and the Referee found, that in committing the aforesaid acts the respondent was "guilty of illegal, corrupt and unethical practices and professional misconduct and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud and deceit, such conduct being prejudicial to the administration of justice”.

On January 27, 1978 the respondent pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to one count of violating section 7203 of title 26 of the United States Code. On March 28, 1978 the respondent was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $2,500. The sentencing Judge suspended execution of 11 months of the jail sentence.

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

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline we have taken into consideration the respondent’s previously unblemished record, his co-operation and contrition throughout this proceeding, and the other mitigating circumstances expressed by the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent should be and is hereby censured for his misconduct.

Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Titone 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 December 21, 1955. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Referee to whom the issues were referred for hearing and report.

The Referee found the respondent guilty of violating section 7203 of title 26 of the United States Code, in that for the calendar years 1973 and 1974, the respondent received gross income in such amounts as would require him to file income tax returns and that the respondent knowingly and willfully failed to file income tax returns for said calendar years. It was alleged, and the Referee found, that in committing the aforesaid acts the respondent was "guilty of illegal, corrupt and unethical practices and professional misconduct and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud and deceit, such conduct being prejudicial to the administration of justice”.

On January 27, 1978 the respondent pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to one count of violating section 7203 of title 26 of the United States Code. On March 28, 1978 the respondent was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $2,500. The sentencing Judge suspended execution of 11 months of the jail sentence.

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

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline we have taken into consideration the respondent’s previously unblemished record, his co-operation and contrition throughout this proceeding, and the other mitigating circumstances expressed by the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent should be and is hereby censured for his misconduct.

Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 469, 421 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jonas-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack