In re Longo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Longo

51 A.D.2d 20, 379 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10655

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 20 (In re Longo) 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 Longo, 51 A.D.2d 20, 379 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on June 30, 1937. In this proceeding to discipline the respondent for professional misconduct, the petitioner has moved to confirm the report of Mr. Justice Hirsch, to whom the proceeding had been referred for hearing and report.

Respondent was charged with illegal, corrupt and unethical practices, professional misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in that, on September 11, 1973, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, he entered a plea of nolo contendere to the crime of willfully and knowingly filing a false and fraudulent Federal income tax return for the calendar year 1967. On Decern[21]*21ber 21, 1973 the respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of $7,500.

The reporting Justice sustained the charges of misconduct in full. He also noted respondent’s civic and charitable activities, his previously unblemished record and the adverse effect upon his health and law practice which resulted from the conviction.

The evidence adduced at the hearing fully supports the findings of Mr. Justice Hirsch. The petitioner’s motion to confirm the report is therefore granted.

In determining the measure of discipline to be imposed we have taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances set forth by the reporting Justice. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the respondent be and he hereby is censured for his misconduct.

Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on June 30, 1937. In this proceeding to discipline the respondent for professional misconduct, the petitioner has moved to confirm the report of Mr. Justice Hirsch, to whom the proceeding had been referred for hearing and report.

Respondent was charged with illegal, corrupt and unethical practices, professional misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in that, on September 11, 1973, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, he entered a plea of nolo contendere to the crime of willfully and knowingly filing a false and fraudulent Federal income tax return for the calendar year 1967. On Decern[21]*21ber 21, 1973 the respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of $7,500.

The reporting Justice sustained the charges of misconduct in full. He also noted respondent’s civic and charitable activities, his previously unblemished record and the adverse effect upon his health and law practice which resulted from the conviction.

The evidence adduced at the hearing fully supports the findings of Mr. Justice Hirsch. The petitioner’s motion to confirm the report is therefore granted.

In determining the measure of discipline to be imposed we have taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances set forth by the reporting Justice. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the respondent be and he hereby is censured for his misconduct.

Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 20, 379 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-longo-nyappdiv-1976.