In re Ligammari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ligammari

290 A.D.2d 175, 737 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1215

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 175 (In re Ligammari) 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 Ligammari, 290 A.D.2d 175, 737 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 7, 1986, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Niagara Falls. The Grievance Committee filed a petition [176]*176charging that respondent, as a candidate for the position of Niagara County Court Judge, made false accusations of criminal and unethical conduct against his opponent, who was then a Town Justice. The false accusations were made both in correspondence and in a series of campaign advertisements. Respondent filed an answer and an amended answer denying certain factual allegations of the petition, and a Referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. The Referee filed a report that the Grievance Committee moves to confirm.

The Referee found that, at the time that respondent made false accusations against his opponent, he knew or should have known that the accusations were false.

We confirm the findings of fact made by the Referee and conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rule of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 8-102 (b) (22 NYCRR 1200.43 [b]) — knowingly making false accusations against a Judge.

We have considered the matters in mitigation submitted by respondent, including his previously unblemished record. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured.

Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Scudder and Burns, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 7, 1986, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Niagara Falls. The Grievance Committee filed a petition [176]*176charging that respondent, as a candidate for the position of Niagara County Court Judge, made false accusations of criminal and unethical conduct against his opponent, who was then a Town Justice. The false accusations were made both in correspondence and in a series of campaign advertisements. Respondent filed an answer and an amended answer denying certain factual allegations of the petition, and a Referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. The Referee filed a report that the Grievance Committee moves to confirm.

The Referee found that, at the time that respondent made false accusations against his opponent, he knew or should have known that the accusations were false.

We confirm the findings of fact made by the Referee and conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rule of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 8-102 (b) (22 NYCRR 1200.43 [b]) — knowingly making false accusations against a Judge.

We have considered the matters in mitigation submitted by respondent, including his previously unblemished record. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured.

Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Scudder and Burns, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 175, 737 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ligammari-nyappdiv-2002.