In re Russo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Russo

42 A.D.2d 122, 346 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3905

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 122 (In re Russo) 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 Russo, 42 A.D.2d 122, 346 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Three charges of professional misconduct were alleged against respondent who was admitted to the Bar in the Second Judicial Department on October 28, 1936 and two of those charges were sustained by the Referee herein. Those two charges involve respondent’s failure to respond or report to petitioner, which had requested information from him concerning his alleged handling of two matters. The matters mder investigation by petitioner were minor in nature but respond[123]*123ent’s reasons for failing to eo-operate are not acceptable under the circumstances.

The report of the Eeferee is confirmed and respondent is censured for his misconduct.

Markewich, J. P., Nunez, Lane, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ., concur.

Eespondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

Three charges of professional misconduct were alleged against respondent who was admitted to the Bar in the Second Judicial Department on October 28, 1936 and two of those charges were sustained by the Referee herein. Those two charges involve respondent’s failure to respond or report to petitioner, which had requested information from him concerning his alleged handling of two matters. The matters mder investigation by petitioner were minor in nature but respond[123]*123ent’s reasons for failing to eo-operate are not acceptable under the circumstances.

The report of the Eeferee is confirmed and respondent is censured for his misconduct.

Markewich, J. P., Nunez, Lane, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ., concur.

Eespondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 122, 346 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-russo-nyappdiv-1973.