Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/In re Supples

In re Supples

102 A.D.2d 699, 477 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18842
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 13, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 102 A.D.2d 699 (In re Supples) 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 Supples, 102 A.D.2d 699, 477 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this court on April 3, 1968. The petition charges that respondent, who was retained to represent the beneficiaries of an estate, failed to pursue a claim on their behalf and failed to remit the proceeds of checks totaling $10,950 issued to individual beneficiaries and himself as attorney, except for $1,800. Respondent is also charged with failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee.

Respondent’s failure to appear, answer or otherwise move against the petition constitutes an admission of the charges (Matter of Hunt, 40 AD2d 9; Matter of Krieger, 38 AD2d 238). Accordingly, respondent is guilty of violating DR 1-102(A)(4), DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 9-102(A) and DR 9-102(B) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and of failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee and should be suspended until further order of the court.

[700]*700Hancock, Jr., J. P., Boomer, O’Donnell, Moule and Schnepp, JJ., concur.

Order of suspension entered.

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

Related

In re Wedlock
230 A.D.2d 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re Hetzelt
225 A.D.2d 195 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Golkin
223 A.D.2d 50 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Monroe
220 A.D.2d 66 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Gembarosky
214 A.D.2d 209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
In re Osborne
196 A.D.2d 177 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
In re Schweitzer
189 A.D.2d 61 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re Coughlin
188 A.D.2d 1 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re Scirto
180 A.D.2d 29 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re Young
168 A.D.2d 26 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re Burgess
129 A.D.2d 252 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 A.D.2d 699, 477 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-supples-nyappdiv-1984.