In re Koch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Koch

77 A.D.2d 486, 433 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13371

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.2d 486 (In re Koch) 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 Koch, 77 A.D.2d 486, 433 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, First Department, on December 13, 1965. On July 24, 1979 the respondent was convicted, upon his plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, of being an accessory after the fact for knowingly withholding information in violation of section 3 of title 18 of the United States Code. This was based upon the respondent’s failure to disclose, in a loan application filed with the Small Business Administration, the existence of an agréeihent that finders fees would be [487]*487paid to certain persons and his failure to take affirmative steps to inform the Small Business Administration of the afore-mentioned agreement. The respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three months and a fine of $2,500. The sentence was subsequently reduced to one month imprisonment in addition to the fine of $2,500.

The Referee found that based upon the afore-mentioned conviction the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct and of behavior prejudicial to the administration of justice. The petitioner has moved to confirm the Referee’s report and respondent has submitted an affidavit requesting confirmation.

After reviewing the evidence before us we find the respondent guilty of the afore-mentioned misconduct. Accordingly, we confirm the Referee’s report.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed, we have taken into consideration the respondent’s previously unblemished record, his co-operation throughout this proceeding, the fact that the respondent received no pecuniary gain and the other mitigating circumstances brought to light at the hearing of this matter. Accordingly, the respondent should be, and he is hereby, censured for his misconduct.

Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Titone and Weinstein, 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 the Appellate Division, First Department, on December 13, 1965. On July 24, 1979 the respondent was convicted, upon his plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, of being an accessory after the fact for knowingly withholding information in violation of section 3 of title 18 of the United States Code. This was based upon the respondent’s failure to disclose, in a loan application filed with the Small Business Administration, the existence of an agréeihent that finders fees would be [487]*487paid to certain persons and his failure to take affirmative steps to inform the Small Business Administration of the afore-mentioned agreement. The respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three months and a fine of $2,500. The sentence was subsequently reduced to one month imprisonment in addition to the fine of $2,500.

The Referee found that based upon the afore-mentioned conviction the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct and of behavior prejudicial to the administration of justice. The petitioner has moved to confirm the Referee’s report and respondent has submitted an affidavit requesting confirmation.

After reviewing the evidence before us we find the respondent guilty of the afore-mentioned misconduct. Accordingly, we confirm the Referee’s report.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed, we have taken into consideration the respondent’s previously unblemished record, his co-operation throughout this proceeding, the fact that the respondent received no pecuniary gain and the other mitigating circumstances brought to light at the hearing of this matter. Accordingly, the respondent should be, and he is hereby, censured for his misconduct.

Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.2d 486, 433 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-koch-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack