In re Pacor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Pacor

99 A.D.2d 821, 472 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17223

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 821 (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, 99 A.D.2d 821, 472 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In this proceeding to discipline an attorney upon charges of professional misconduct, respondent has failed to appear or answer the petition herein containing the charges, although the time to do so has expired. Respondent was personally served in this matter. Petitioner further moved for a default judgment on the ground that respondent failed to appear or answer the afore-mentioned petition. Although served with the notice of motion for a default judgment, respondent failed to answer. The respondent was admitted to practice as an attorney by the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department on November [822]*82226,1951. By order of this court dated May 31,1983, respondent was suspended pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding. There are 29 charges of misconduct alleged against respondent including 12 allegations of conversion of various clients’ funds in a total amount exceeding $360,000. Other charges allege failure to repay loans made from clients or former clients, failure to cooperate with the petitioner grievance committee and failure to communicate with the clients and the petitioner grievance committee. The charges, if established, would require respondent’s disbarment. Since he has chosen not to deny the charges and not even to appear in this proceeding, the charges must be deemed established. Petitioner’s motion is therefore granted. Respondent is unfit to be a member of the Bar. He is disbarred and his name is ordered removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law, effective forthwith. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

In this proceeding to discipline an attorney upon charges of professional misconduct, respondent has failed to appear or answer the petition herein containing the charges, although the time to do so has expired. Respondent was personally served in this matter. Petitioner further moved for a default judgment on the ground that respondent failed to appear or answer the afore-mentioned petition. Although served with the notice of motion for a default judgment, respondent failed to answer. The respondent was admitted to practice as an attorney by the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department on November [822]*82226,1951. By order of this court dated May 31,1983, respondent was suspended pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding. There are 29 charges of misconduct alleged against respondent including 12 allegations of conversion of various clients’ funds in a total amount exceeding $360,000. Other charges allege failure to repay loans made from clients or former clients, failure to cooperate with the petitioner grievance committee and failure to communicate with the clients and the petitioner grievance committee. The charges, if established, would require respondent’s disbarment. Since he has chosen not to deny the charges and not even to appear in this proceeding, the charges must be deemed established. Petitioner’s motion is therefore granted. Respondent is unfit to be a member of the Bar. He is disbarred and his name is ordered removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law, effective forthwith. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 821, 472 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pacor-nyappdiv-1984.