In re O'Leary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re O'Leary

86 A.D.2d 369, 450 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15722

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

DecidedMay 10, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 369 (In re O'Leary) 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 O'Leary, 86 A.D.2d 369, 450 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on February 5, 1954.

In this proceeding to discipline the respondent for professional misconduct, the referee found that the respondent was guilty of failing to appear for a trial resulting in a dismissal of the case; failing to communicate with clients; failing to file an attorney registration form with the Office of Court Administration as required by the rules of this court; and neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. The petitioner has moved to confirm the referee’s report and the respondent has submitted an affirmation in response to said motion.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in full agreement with the report of the referee. The respondent is guilty of the afore-mentioned misconduct. The petitioner’s motion to confirm is granted.

[370]*370In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed, we are mindful of the respondent’s co-operation throughout these proceedings, as well as the serious personal problems confronting him at the time of the misconduct. Accordingly, the respondent should be, and he hereby is, censured for his misconduct.

Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Titone, Lazer and Mangano, 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 this court on February 5, 1954.

In this proceeding to discipline the respondent for professional misconduct, the referee found that the respondent was guilty of failing to appear for a trial resulting in a dismissal of the case; failing to communicate with clients; failing to file an attorney registration form with the Office of Court Administration as required by the rules of this court; and neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. The petitioner has moved to confirm the referee’s report and the respondent has submitted an affirmation in response to said motion.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in full agreement with the report of the referee. The respondent is guilty of the afore-mentioned misconduct. The petitioner’s motion to confirm is granted.

[370]*370In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed, we are mindful of the respondent’s co-operation throughout these proceedings, as well as the serious personal problems confronting him at the time of the misconduct. Accordingly, the respondent should be, and he hereby is, censured for his misconduct.

Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Titone, Lazer and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 369, 450 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-oleary-nyappdiv-1982.