In re Pravda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Pravda

68 A.D.2d 156, 417 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10532

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

DecidedMay 24, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.2d 156 (In re Pravda) 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 Pravda, 68 A.D.2d 156, 417 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Divi[157]*157sion, Second Department, on March 16, 1966. Upon the completion of a hearing on charges of professional misconduct before a Referee, respondent was found to have unnecessarily delayed the prosecution of a divorce action in which he had been retained, to have procrastinated in pursuing a negligence action, and in misleading his client as to the status of the case, and to have failed to file a retainer and closing statement in the same negligence action.

Petitioner, the Departmental Disciplinary Committtee for the First Judicial Department, moves to confirm the Referee’s report, and for an order censuring respondent. Although respondent failed to answer the petition, he did testify before the Referee that he had returned the fee in the divorce action and settled a malpractice suit that the client had instituted against him for his delay in prosecuting the matter, that the negligence action had been settled and his client had received his share of the settlement, and that the failure to file the retainer and closing statement was strictly an oversight.

The Referee found no evidence of venality and noted that respondent had been candid and fully co-operative in his testimony, and appeared when required. However, since respondent has been previously admonished on March 3, 1971, for neglecting a case and misleading the client as to the status of the case, petitioner’s motion should be granted.

Accordingly, the report of the Referee should be confirmed and respondent should be censured for his misconduct.

Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Markewich, Lupiano and Silver-man, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

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 practice by the Appellate Divi[157]*157sion, Second Department, on March 16, 1966. Upon the completion of a hearing on charges of professional misconduct before a Referee, respondent was found to have unnecessarily delayed the prosecution of a divorce action in which he had been retained, to have procrastinated in pursuing a negligence action, and in misleading his client as to the status of the case, and to have failed to file a retainer and closing statement in the same negligence action.

Petitioner, the Departmental Disciplinary Committtee for the First Judicial Department, moves to confirm the Referee’s report, and for an order censuring respondent. Although respondent failed to answer the petition, he did testify before the Referee that he had returned the fee in the divorce action and settled a malpractice suit that the client had instituted against him for his delay in prosecuting the matter, that the negligence action had been settled and his client had received his share of the settlement, and that the failure to file the retainer and closing statement was strictly an oversight.

The Referee found no evidence of venality and noted that respondent had been candid and fully co-operative in his testimony, and appeared when required. However, since respondent has been previously admonished on March 3, 1971, for neglecting a case and misleading the client as to the status of the case, petitioner’s motion should be granted.

Accordingly, the report of the Referee should be confirmed and respondent should be censured for his misconduct.

Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Markewich, Lupiano and Silver-man, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.2d 156, 417 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pravda-nyappdiv-1979.