In re Piazza

62 A.D.2d 454, 405 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10856
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 22, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 A.D.2d 454 (In re Piazza) 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 Piazza, 62 A.D.2d 454, 405 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on December 23, 1964. The petition and supplemental petition set forth six charges of misconduct, four of which were sustained by the Referee. Those four charges involved, inter alia, the following misconduct: (1) failing to protect the interests of clients and representing clients with conflicting interests to the detriment of one of the clients; (2) participating with his client, a building developer, in misappropriating statutory trust funds; (3) while representing the afore-mentioned client, knowingly failing to disclose facts and making false and misleading statements of fact, concerning the financial status of his client’s enterprises; and (4) improperly soliciting legal business through a real estate business conducted in the corporate name John L. Piazza, Inc.

Petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Referee to whom the matter was referred for hearing and report. Respondent cross-moves to dismiss the original petition and supplemental petition or, in the alternative, to set aside the Referee’s report.

In our opinion, these four charges were fully sustained by the evidence. Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion to confirm the report is granted and the respondent’s cross motion is denied.

The respondent is adjudged guilty of serious professional misconduct and should be, and he hereby is, disbarred from further practice of law and his name is ordered removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law, effective forthwith.

Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham, Damiani and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Iin re Westreich
212 A.D.2d 109 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 A.D.2d 454, 405 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-piazza-nyappdiv-1978.