In re Leyden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Leyden

90 A.D.2d 562, 454 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18628

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.2d 562 (In re Leyden) 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 Leyden, 90 A.D.2d 562, 454 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court on November 12, 1964 and practices in the City of Albany. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, petitioner moved to confirm the report of the hearing Judge which, based upon respondent’s admissions, sustained two charges, finding that respondent failed to co-operate with petitioner in its investigation of three inquiries filed against him and failed to comply with orders of this court directing that he appear for examination before petitioner. The motion to confirm is granted. Since respondent has been admonished by petitioner and its predecessor on two prior occasions for failure to co-operate, we determine that he should be censured for his present misconduct. In reaching this result, we caution respondent that any similar dereliction in the future will require a more severe penalty. Respondent censured. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court on November 12, 1964 and practices in the City of Albany. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, petitioner moved to confirm the report of the hearing Judge which, based upon respondent’s admissions, sustained two charges, finding that respondent failed to co-operate with petitioner in its investigation of three inquiries filed against him and failed to comply with orders of this court directing that he appear for examination before petitioner. The motion to confirm is granted. Since respondent has been admonished by petitioner and its predecessor on two prior occasions for failure to co-operate, we determine that he should be censured for his present misconduct. In reaching this result, we caution respondent that any similar dereliction in the future will require a more severe penalty. Respondent censured. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 562, 454 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-leyden-nyappdiv-1982.