In re Picciano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Picciano

104 A.D.2d 712, 480 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20129

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 712 (In re Picciano) 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 Picciano, 104 A.D.2d 712, 480 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court on January 20,1955 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Endicott, Broome County. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, petitioner moves to confirm the report of the referee to whom the issues were referred. Respondent, who filed an answer to the petition of charges but then failed to appear and defend the charges at the [713]*713hearing before the referee, has not filed any response to petitioner’s motion.

The referee sustained nine charges of misconduct, finding that respondent neglected four legal matters entrusted to him, misled and deceived his clients as to the status of their cases, misled and deceived petitioner in its investigation of two matters, failed to respond to inquiries from two clients, failed to cooperate with new counsel retained by a client and failed to cooperate with petitioner in its investigation of four inquiries concerning his professional conduct. The evidence in the record supports the referee’s findings. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to confirm the referee’s report is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed for respondent’s misconduct, we note that he was previously censured by this court (Matter ofPicciano, 81 AD2d 1000). In addition, his failure in this proceeding to appear at the hearing before the referee or to respond to petitioner’s motion to confirm can only be construed as indifference to the consequences of a finding of misconduct. Under all the circumstances, we have determined that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years and until reinstated by order of this court.

Respondent suspended for a period of two years, the date of commencement to be fixed in the order to be entered hereon. Kane, P. J., Main, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

— Respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court on January 20,1955 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Endicott, Broome County. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, petitioner moves to confirm the report of the referee to whom the issues were referred. Respondent, who filed an answer to the petition of charges but then failed to appear and defend the charges at the [713]*713hearing before the referee, has not filed any response to petitioner’s motion.

The referee sustained nine charges of misconduct, finding that respondent neglected four legal matters entrusted to him, misled and deceived his clients as to the status of their cases, misled and deceived petitioner in its investigation of two matters, failed to respond to inquiries from two clients, failed to cooperate with new counsel retained by a client and failed to cooperate with petitioner in its investigation of four inquiries concerning his professional conduct. The evidence in the record supports the referee’s findings. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to confirm the referee’s report is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed for respondent’s misconduct, we note that he was previously censured by this court (Matter ofPicciano, 81 AD2d 1000). In addition, his failure in this proceeding to appear at the hearing before the referee or to respond to petitioner’s motion to confirm can only be construed as indifference to the consequences of a finding of misconduct. Under all the circumstances, we have determined that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years and until reinstated by order of this court.

Respondent suspended for a period of two years, the date of commencement to be fixed in the order to be entered hereon. Kane, P. J., Main, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 712, 480 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-picciano-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack