In re Pistone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Pistone

81 A.D.2d 116, 439 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10499

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 1981·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on December 21,1960.

In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the respondent was charged with (1) engaging in an impermissible conflict of interest; (2) neglecting three legal matters entrusted to him; and (3) engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit and misrepresentation in two of those matters. The Referee found that all of the charges were sustained.

[117] The petitioner has moved to confirm the report of the Referee and the respondent has cross-moved to disaffirm said report.

After reviewing all of the evidence we are in full agreement with the report of the Referee. The petitioner’s motion is granted and the respondent’s cross motion is denied.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline we are mindful of the respondent’s disregard of his clients’ interests. Accordingly the respondent should be, and hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years commencing July 13, 1981, and until the further order of this court.

Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Titone and Lazer, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on December 21,1960.

In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the respondent was charged with (1) engaging in an impermissible conflict of interest; (2) neglecting three legal matters entrusted to him; and (3) engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit and misrepresentation in two of those matters. The Referee found that all of the charges were sustained.

[117] The petitioner has moved to confirm the report of the Referee and the respondent has cross-moved to disaffirm said report.

After reviewing all of the evidence we are in full agreement with the report of the Referee. The petitioner’s motion is granted and the respondent’s cross motion is denied.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline we are mindful of the respondent’s disregard of his clients’ interests. Accordingly the respondent should be, and hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years commencing July 13, 1981, and until the further order of this court.

Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Titone and Lazer, JJ., concur.

In re Pistone, 81 A.D.2d 116, 439 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

81 A.D.2d 116 (In re Pistone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related