In re Taft

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Taft

188 A.D.2d 106, 595 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2018

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 106 (In re Taft) 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 Taft, 188 A.D.2d 106, 595 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

[107]*107OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

By order of the Vermont Supreme Court, filed July 14, 1992, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for four months, commencing August 1, 1992, and ending on November 30, 1992. As set forth in the stipulation of fact dated March 5, 1992, the respondent pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of knowingly failing to file Vermont income tax returns for 1987 and 1988, in violation of 32 Vermont Statutes Annotated § 5894 (b). The respondent also failed to file State income taxes between 1981 and 1987.

On October 8, 1992, the respondent was personally served in the instant proceeding with a notice pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.3, informing him of his right to interpose certain enumerated defenses to the imposition of discipline in New York. The respondent has waived his procedural rights, including the right to a hearing.

Accordingly, the respondent is censured based upon the disciplinary action taken against him in Vermont.

Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, George E. Taft, is hereby censured for his misconduct.

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

[107]*107OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

By order of the Vermont Supreme Court, filed July 14, 1992, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for four months, commencing August 1, 1992, and ending on November 30, 1992. As set forth in the stipulation of fact dated March 5, 1992, the respondent pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of knowingly failing to file Vermont income tax returns for 1987 and 1988, in violation of 32 Vermont Statutes Annotated § 5894 (b). The respondent also failed to file State income taxes between 1981 and 1987.

On October 8, 1992, the respondent was personally served in the instant proceeding with a notice pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.3, informing him of his right to interpose certain enumerated defenses to the imposition of discipline in New York. The respondent has waived his procedural rights, including the right to a hearing.

Accordingly, the respondent is censured based upon the disciplinary action taken against him in Vermont.

Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, George E. Taft, is hereby censured for his misconduct.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 106, 595 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-taft-nyappdiv-1993.