In re Michalek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Michalek

180 A.D.2d 67, 582 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7122

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

DecidedApril 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 180 A.D.2d 67 (In re Michalek) 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 Michalek, 180 A.D.2d 67, 582 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

James J. Michalek was disbarred by order of this court on August 26, 1991, based on certain felony convictions in Erie County Court (Matter of Michalek, 176 AD2d 1246).

The Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District (Committee) moved to punish respondent for civil and crimi[68]*68nal contempt for violating the order of disbarment and for unlawfully practicing law. Respondent appeared on the return date and filed a written answer denying those charges. A reference was ordered, but respondent, although given notice, failed to appear at the hearing before the Referee. With notice to respondent, the Committee moved to confirm the Referee’s report. Respondent again failed to appear.

The record supports the Referee’s findings that, after respondent was personally served with the order of disbarment, he continued to maintain a law office at 180 Main Street, Hamburg, New York; signs inside and outside that office continued to indicate that respondent was an attorney at law; clients continued to make payments on legal fees to respondent’s secretary at that office; and respondent filed a letter with the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Western District of New York stating that a named individual was a client and making representations to the court on behalf of that person.

Respondent’s conduct constitutes criminal contempt of this court (see, Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [3]) and he should be punished by a fine of $1,000 and 30 days’ imprisonment.

Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ., concur.

Order of contempt entered.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

James J. Michalek was disbarred by order of this court on August 26, 1991, based on certain felony convictions in Erie County Court (Matter of Michalek, 176 AD2d 1246).

The Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District (Committee) moved to punish respondent for civil and crimi[68]*68nal contempt for violating the order of disbarment and for unlawfully practicing law. Respondent appeared on the return date and filed a written answer denying those charges. A reference was ordered, but respondent, although given notice, failed to appear at the hearing before the Referee. With notice to respondent, the Committee moved to confirm the Referee’s report. Respondent again failed to appear.

The record supports the Referee’s findings that, after respondent was personally served with the order of disbarment, he continued to maintain a law office at 180 Main Street, Hamburg, New York; signs inside and outside that office continued to indicate that respondent was an attorney at law; clients continued to make payments on legal fees to respondent’s secretary at that office; and respondent filed a letter with the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Western District of New York stating that a named individual was a client and making representations to the court on behalf of that person.

Respondent’s conduct constitutes criminal contempt of this court (see, Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [3]) and he should be punished by a fine of $1,000 and 30 days’ imprisonment.

Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ., concur.

Order of contempt entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 67, 582 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-michalek-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack