In re Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Taylor

121 A.D.2d 585, 503 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58573

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

DecidedJune 16, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.2d 585 (In re Taylor) 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 Taylor, 121 A.D.2d 585, 503 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In this proceeding to discipline an attorney upon charges of professional misconduct, respondent has failed to appear or to answer the petitioner herein containing the charges, although the time to do so has expired. Respondent was personally served in this matter. Petitioner further moved for a default judgment on the ground that respondent failed to appear or to answer the aforementioned petition. Although served with the notice of motion for a default judgment, respondent failed to answer.

[586]*586The respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court on March 16, 1966. The charges generally stated, are that respondent (1) commingled escrow funds totaling $60,000 with his personal and business funds; (2) violated escrow agreements and converted escrow funds mentioned in charge one; and (3) failed to keep accurate bookkeeping records regarding his escrow accounts as required by the rules of this court.

The charges, if established, would require respondent’s disbarment. Since he has chosen not to deny the charges and not even to appear in this proceeding, the charges must be deemed established. Petitioner’s motion is therefore granted. Respondent is unfit to be a member of the Bar. He is disbarred and his name is ordered removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective forthwith. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

In this proceeding to discipline an attorney upon charges of professional misconduct, respondent has failed to appear or to answer the petitioner herein containing the charges, although the time to do so has expired. Respondent was personally served in this matter. Petitioner further moved for a default judgment on the ground that respondent failed to appear or to answer the aforementioned petition. Although served with the notice of motion for a default judgment, respondent failed to answer.

[586]*586The respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court on March 16, 1966. The charges generally stated, are that respondent (1) commingled escrow funds totaling $60,000 with his personal and business funds; (2) violated escrow agreements and converted escrow funds mentioned in charge one; and (3) failed to keep accurate bookkeeping records regarding his escrow accounts as required by the rules of this court.

The charges, if established, would require respondent’s disbarment. Since he has chosen not to deny the charges and not even to appear in this proceeding, the charges must be deemed established. Petitioner’s motion is therefore granted. Respondent is unfit to be a member of the Bar. He is disbarred and his name is ordered removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective forthwith. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 585, 503 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-taylor-nyappdiv-1986.