In re Pacor

87 A.D.2d 392, 451 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16564
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 28, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 87 A.D.2d 392 (In re Pacor) 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 Pacor, 87 A.D.2d 392, 451 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

OPINION of the court

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, on November 26, 1951. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the referee to whom the issues were referred for hearing and report. The respondent has submitted an affidavit in opposition to petitioner’s motion to confirm.

The referee found the respondent guilty of the following misconduct: accepting a loan from a client and entering into a business transaction in which he and the client had [393]*393differing interests; executing a mortgage note for the client as consideration for the loan, but failing to record the mortgage; executing another mortgage on the same premises and failing to advise his client of the legal effect of the unrecorded mortgage; and defaulting on the repayment of the loan, and when ultimately making a partial payment, submitting a check which was returned for insufficient funds.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in full agreement with the findings contained in the report of the referee. Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion to confirm the report is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline, we are cognizant of the mitigating factors advanced by the respondent in this proceeding, as well as his previously unblemished record.

Accordingly, the respondent should be, and he hereby is, censured for his misconduct.

Titone, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons, Gulotta and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re Coxeter
208 A.D.2d 1178 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
In re Fraser
128 A.D.2d 190 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Larkin v. Wood (In Re Wood)
67 B.R. 321 (W.D. New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 A.D.2d 392, 451 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pacor-nyappdiv-1982.