In re Root

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Root

63 A.D.2d 549, 408 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11375

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

DecidedAugust 17, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 A.D.2d 549 (In re Root) 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 Root, 63 A.D.2d 549, 408 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The petitioner moves to confirm that part of the Referee’s report as recommended that the respondent be adjudged [550]*550guilty of professional misconduct for his conviction of the crime of perjury in the third degree. The petitioner moves to disaffirm the part of the report as merely recommended the sanction of censure. The respondent cross-moves to confirm the report in its entirety.

The respondent does not contest the fact that he should be adjudged guilty of professional misconduct (Judiciary Law, § 90, subd 2). Thus, the sole question presented is the sanction to be imposed upon him. The respondent’s conviction, although only for a class A misdemeanor, indicates a deficiency on his part of a most essential attribute of a practicing attorney, viz., truthfulness. Therefore, taking into account the respondent’s otherwise unblemshied record and extensive pro bono legal work, we find that the evidence warrants a suspension for a period of 18 months.

Accordingly, the motion and cross motion should be granted only to the extent of adjudging the respondent guilty of professional misconduct and suspending him from the practice of law for a period of 18 months.

Murphy, P. J., Silverman, Evans, Lane and Markewich, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for a period of 18 months, effective September 18, 1978.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The petitioner moves to confirm that part of the Referee’s report as recommended that the respondent be adjudged [550]*550guilty of professional misconduct for his conviction of the crime of perjury in the third degree. The petitioner moves to disaffirm the part of the report as merely recommended the sanction of censure. The respondent cross-moves to confirm the report in its entirety.

The respondent does not contest the fact that he should be adjudged guilty of professional misconduct (Judiciary Law, § 90, subd 2). Thus, the sole question presented is the sanction to be imposed upon him. The respondent’s conviction, although only for a class A misdemeanor, indicates a deficiency on his part of a most essential attribute of a practicing attorney, viz., truthfulness. Therefore, taking into account the respondent’s otherwise unblemshied record and extensive pro bono legal work, we find that the evidence warrants a suspension for a period of 18 months.

Accordingly, the motion and cross motion should be granted only to the extent of adjudging the respondent guilty of professional misconduct and suspending him from the practice of law for a period of 18 months.

Murphy, P. J., Silverman, Evans, Lane and Markewich, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for a period of 18 months, effective September 18, 1978.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 549, 408 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-root-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack