In re Panepinto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Panepinto

290 A.D.2d 66, 737 N.Y.S.2d 707, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12885

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 5, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court [67]*67on February 18, 1998, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Buffalo. On October 11, 2001, respondent was convicted upon his plea of guilty in Erie County Court of misconduct in relation to petitions (Election Law § 17-122 [7]), a misdemeanor. Respondent admitted that he signed his name as subscribing witness to nominating petitions that were not signed in his presence and that contained fraudulent signatures. Respondent was sentenced to payment of a fine. This Court determined that misconduct in relation to petitions is a serious crime within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d), and, on October 31, 2001, entered an order suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be entered. Respondent appeared before the Court and submitted matters in mitigation.

We have considered the matters in mitigation, including respondent’s expression of remorse and previously unblemished record. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for 30 days, effective October 31, 2001.

Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ., concur.

Order of suspension entered.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court [67]*67on February 18, 1998, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Buffalo. On October 11, 2001, respondent was convicted upon his plea of guilty in Erie County Court of misconduct in relation to petitions (Election Law § 17-122 [7]), a misdemeanor. Respondent admitted that he signed his name as subscribing witness to nominating petitions that were not signed in his presence and that contained fraudulent signatures. Respondent was sentenced to payment of a fine. This Court determined that misconduct in relation to petitions is a serious crime within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d), and, on October 31, 2001, entered an order suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be entered. Respondent appeared before the Court and submitted matters in mitigation.

We have considered the matters in mitigation, including respondent’s expression of remorse and previously unblemished record. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for 30 days, effective October 31, 2001.

Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ., concur.

Order of suspension entered.

In re Panepinto, 290 A.D.2d 66, 737 N.Y.S.2d 707, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

290 A.D.2d 66 (In re Panepinto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related