In re Rosenblatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rosenblatt

26 A.D.3d 49, 806 N.Y.S.2d 425

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 49 (In re Rosenblatt) 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 Rosenblatt, 26 A.D.3d 49, 806 N.Y.S.2d 425 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The petition contains one charge of professional misconduct, alleging that the respondent was convicted of a serious crime in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (3) and (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [3], [7]). On June 3, 2004, the respondent entered a plea of guilty in the Supreme Court, Queens County, before the Honorable Arthur J. Cooperman, to soliciting business on behalf of an attorney, in violation of Judiciary Law § 479, an unclassified misdemeanor. The respondent was sentenced to a conditional discharge of one year and paid a $110 mandatory surcharge and a $10 crime victim’s fee.

After a hearing on April 26, 2005, the Special Referee sustained the charge. The petitioner now moves to confirm the Special Referee’s report and impose such discipline as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. The respondent and his counsel have submitted affirmations in response to the motion requesting that the Court impose a sanction no greater than a public censure. Based on the uncontroverted evidence, the Special Referee properly sustained the charge of professional misconduct, and the motion to confirm is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to impose, the respondent asks the Court to consider the evidence he submitted in mitigation, including his community service and charitable activities. Considering the underlying conduct which gave rise to the respondent’s conviction, his complete cooperation, and his expressed remorse, the respondent is publicly censured.

Prudenti, P.J., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

[51]*51Ordered that the motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, Michael J. Rosenblatt, admitted as Michael Jon Rosenblatt, is publicly censured for his professional misconduct.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The petition contains one charge of professional misconduct, alleging that the respondent was convicted of a serious crime in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (3) and (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [3], [7]). On June 3, 2004, the respondent entered a plea of guilty in the Supreme Court, Queens County, before the Honorable Arthur J. Cooperman, to soliciting business on behalf of an attorney, in violation of Judiciary Law § 479, an unclassified misdemeanor. The respondent was sentenced to a conditional discharge of one year and paid a $110 mandatory surcharge and a $10 crime victim’s fee.

After a hearing on April 26, 2005, the Special Referee sustained the charge. The petitioner now moves to confirm the Special Referee’s report and impose such discipline as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. The respondent and his counsel have submitted affirmations in response to the motion requesting that the Court impose a sanction no greater than a public censure. Based on the uncontroverted evidence, the Special Referee properly sustained the charge of professional misconduct, and the motion to confirm is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to impose, the respondent asks the Court to consider the evidence he submitted in mitigation, including his community service and charitable activities. Considering the underlying conduct which gave rise to the respondent’s conviction, his complete cooperation, and his expressed remorse, the respondent is publicly censured.

Prudenti, P.J., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

[51]*51Ordered that the motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, Michael J. Rosenblatt, admitted as Michael Jon Rosenblatt, is publicly censured for his professional misconduct.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 49, 806 N.Y.S.2d 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosenblatt-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack