In re Kabat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kabat

101 A.D.2d 292, 475 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17814

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

DecidedMay 7, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.2d 292 (In re Kabat) 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 Kabat, 101 A.D.2d 292, 475 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on March 22, 1967. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the special referee.

The special referee sustained 23 charges of professional misconduct, including neglecting numerous legal matters entrusted to him; deceiving a client regarding the status of a legal matter; engaging in a conflict of interest; converting to his own use withholding taxes deducted from his employee’s wages; repeatedly failing to cooperate with the Suffolk County Bar Association Grievance Committee and the petitioner Grievance Committee in their respective investigations of various complaints; and failing to comply with a judicial subpoena duces tecum.

[293]*293After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in full agreement with the findings contained in the report of the special referee. Respondent is guilty of the misconduct described above. Petitioner’s motion to confirm the special referee’s report is granted.

Accordingly, the respondent should be, and hereby is, disbarred and the clerk of the court is directed to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law forthwith.

Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer, Mangano and Gibbons, 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 22, 1967. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the special referee.

The special referee sustained 23 charges of professional misconduct, including neglecting numerous legal matters entrusted to him; deceiving a client regarding the status of a legal matter; engaging in a conflict of interest; converting to his own use withholding taxes deducted from his employee’s wages; repeatedly failing to cooperate with the Suffolk County Bar Association Grievance Committee and the petitioner Grievance Committee in their respective investigations of various complaints; and failing to comply with a judicial subpoena duces tecum.

[293]*293After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in full agreement with the findings contained in the report of the special referee. Respondent is guilty of the misconduct described above. Petitioner’s motion to confirm the special referee’s report is granted.

Accordingly, the respondent should be, and hereby is, disbarred and the clerk of the court is directed to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law forthwith.

Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 292, 475 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kabat-nyappdiv-1984.