In re Thies

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Thies

84 A.D.2d 420, 447 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14937

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 A.D.2d 420 (In re Thies) 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 Thies, 84 A.D.2d 420, 447 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on December 16, 1959 under the name of Winthrop D. Thies. In this proceeding the respondent moves for an order [421]*421disaffirming the report of the referee and for reinstatement to the Bar. Petitioner cross-moves to confirm the referee’s report and to deny the respondent’s application to be reinstated.

The referee found that the respondent had been convicted of the Federal" felony of assaulting a Federal officer in violation of section 111 of title 18 of the United States Code, such Federal felony constituting a misdemeanor under the laws of New York State (Penal Law, §205.30). Further, the referee found that the respondent, in partnership with a convicted and imprisoned client, engaged in an attempted fraudulent scheme to sell for $50,000 seemingly valid but actually worthless securities with a face value of $1,000,000, knowing them to be spurious.

We are in agreement with the referee’s report. Respondent is guilty of the misconduct alleged. Respondent’s motion to disaffirm the referee’s report and for reinstatement to the Bar is denied and petitioner’s cross motion to confirm the report of the referee is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed we are mindful that respondent has remained suspended from the practice of law since March 13, 1978. Under all the circumstances, it is our opinion that the respondent should be, and he hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years, nunc pro tunc, as of March 13, 1978, and until the further order of this court.

Mollen, P.J., Damiani, Titone, Lazer and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on December 16, 1959 under the name of Winthrop D. Thies. In this proceeding the respondent moves for an order [421]*421disaffirming the report of the referee and for reinstatement to the Bar. Petitioner cross-moves to confirm the referee’s report and to deny the respondent’s application to be reinstated.

The referee found that the respondent had been convicted of the Federal" felony of assaulting a Federal officer in violation of section 111 of title 18 of the United States Code, such Federal felony constituting a misdemeanor under the laws of New York State (Penal Law, §205.30). Further, the referee found that the respondent, in partnership with a convicted and imprisoned client, engaged in an attempted fraudulent scheme to sell for $50,000 seemingly valid but actually worthless securities with a face value of $1,000,000, knowing them to be spurious.

We are in agreement with the referee’s report. Respondent is guilty of the misconduct alleged. Respondent’s motion to disaffirm the referee’s report and for reinstatement to the Bar is denied and petitioner’s cross motion to confirm the report of the referee is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed we are mindful that respondent has remained suspended from the practice of law since March 13, 1978. Under all the circumstances, it is our opinion that the respondent should be, and he hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years, nunc pro tunc, as of March 13, 1978, and until the further order of this court.

Mollen, P.J., Damiani, Titone, Lazer and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.2d 420, 447 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-thies-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack