In re Resti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Resti

188 A.D.2d 8, 599 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1421

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 8 (In re Resti) 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 Resti, 188 A.D.2d 8, 599 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent, James A. Resti, was admitted to the practice of [9]*9law by this Court on February 21, 1978. On March 11, 1992, respondent entered a guilty plea in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to one misdemeanor count of willful failure to file his tax return (26 USC § 7203) and was sentenced to five years’ probation. As a result of that plea, respondent was suspended on the ground that he had been convicted of a serious crime (see, Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [d], [f]) and ordered to show cause why a final order of censure, suspension or disbarment should not be entered (see, Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [g]).

Respondent has admitted that he failed to file his 1986 Federal tax return, and he has cooperated with the Internal Revenue Service in arranging payment of his taxes, interest and penalties, as required under the terms of his sentence of probation. The record shows that respondent’s conduct was not motivated by dishonesty or venality. The misconduct was personal in nature and did not have an adverse impact on the interests of his clients. "[I]t does not evidence dishonesty as might have intentional inaccuracies on a tax return” (Matter of Troue, 166 AD2d 871, 872). Respondent has had no other blemish on his record during his nearly 15 years as a practicing attorney.

We conclude, after consideration of all the mitigating circumstances, that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, effective November 24, 1992, and until further order of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 1022.28 [i]; see also, Matter of Gray, 166 AD2d 870; Matter of Sullivan, 92 AD2d 978; Matter of Lawson, 90 AD2d 561).

Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Boomer and Boehm, JJ., concur.

Final order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (h).

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent, James A. Resti, was admitted to the practice of [9]*9law by this Court on February 21, 1978. On March 11, 1992, respondent entered a guilty plea in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to one misdemeanor count of willful failure to file his tax return (26 USC § 7203) and was sentenced to five years’ probation. As a result of that plea, respondent was suspended on the ground that he had been convicted of a serious crime (see, Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [d], [f]) and ordered to show cause why a final order of censure, suspension or disbarment should not be entered (see, Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [g]).

Respondent has admitted that he failed to file his 1986 Federal tax return, and he has cooperated with the Internal Revenue Service in arranging payment of his taxes, interest and penalties, as required under the terms of his sentence of probation. The record shows that respondent’s conduct was not motivated by dishonesty or venality. The misconduct was personal in nature and did not have an adverse impact on the interests of his clients. "[I]t does not evidence dishonesty as might have intentional inaccuracies on a tax return” (Matter of Troue, 166 AD2d 871, 872). Respondent has had no other blemish on his record during his nearly 15 years as a practicing attorney.

We conclude, after consideration of all the mitigating circumstances, that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, effective November 24, 1992, and until further order of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 1022.28 [i]; see also, Matter of Gray, 166 AD2d 870; Matter of Sullivan, 92 AD2d 978; Matter of Lawson, 90 AD2d 561).

Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Boomer and Boehm, JJ., concur.

Final order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (h).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 8, 599 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-resti-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack