In re Rosenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rosenberg

118 A.D.2d 887, 499 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54743

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 887 (In re Rosenberg) 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 Rosenberg, 118 A.D.2d 887, 499 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Petitioner Committee on Professional Standards moves to confirm the report of the Referee which, following a hearing, sustained both charges of professional misconduct contained in the petition. Respondent, an attorney admitted to practice by this court in 1976 and who maintained a law office in the City of Saratoga Springs at the time of the occurrences herein, has not submitted any papers in response to this motion.

The petition charges respondent with neglect of a real property matter and with failure to cooperate with petitioner in its investigation of the complaint.

The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that respondent failed to timely complete or otherwise resolve the property transfer for which he had been retained and also failed on several occasions to communicate with his client concerning this matter. In addition, it is established that respondent failed to answer petitioner’s requests for information until an order was obtained directing his examination under oath (22 NYCRR 806.4 [b]). We therefore grant petitioner’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report.

Although the underlying transaction was eventually resolved by respondent on terms beneficial to his client, his initial neglect and failure to cooperate with petitioner warrant the imposition of discipline. We are of the view that respondent should be censured for his misconduct.

Respondent censured. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Casey and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

— Petitioner Committee on Professional Standards moves to confirm the report of the Referee which, following a hearing, sustained both charges of professional misconduct contained in the petition. Respondent, an attorney admitted to practice by this court in 1976 and who maintained a law office in the City of Saratoga Springs at the time of the occurrences herein, has not submitted any papers in response to this motion.

The petition charges respondent with neglect of a real property matter and with failure to cooperate with petitioner in its investigation of the complaint.

The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that respondent failed to timely complete or otherwise resolve the property transfer for which he had been retained and also failed on several occasions to communicate with his client concerning this matter. In addition, it is established that respondent failed to answer petitioner’s requests for information until an order was obtained directing his examination under oath (22 NYCRR 806.4 [b]). We therefore grant petitioner’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report.

Although the underlying transaction was eventually resolved by respondent on terms beneficial to his client, his initial neglect and failure to cooperate with petitioner warrant the imposition of discipline. We are of the view that respondent should be censured for his misconduct.

Respondent censured. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Casey and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 887, 499 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosenberg-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack