In re Tassio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tassio

174 A.D.2d 166, 579 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 276

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 166 (In re Tassio) 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 Tassio, 174 A.D.2d 166, 579 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

In this proceeding, the respondent was charged with two [167]*167allegations of professional misconduct. The Special Referee sustained both charges. The petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Special Referee and the respondent has submitted an affirmation in opposition thereto.

Charge One alleges that on September 9, 1987, the respondent notarized an affidavit for his client, wherein his client recanted prior testimony. The respondent then predated his notarization to August 28, 1987.

Charge Two alleges that on September 10, 1987, the respondent hand-delivered the fraudulently notarized affidavit to the Westchester County District Attorney’s office.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in agreement with the report of the Special Referee sustaining the charges of professional misconduct. The respondent is guilty of the misconduct outlined above. Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed, we have taken into consideration the mitigating factors advanced by the respondent, the isolated nature of the misconduct, and the respondent’s subsequent cooperation with the District Attorney’s office. Accordingly, the respondent is censured for his professional misconduct.

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

Ordered that the petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, Robert A. Tassio, is hereby censured for his professional misconduct.

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