In re Trammell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Trammell

240 A.D.2d 90, 667 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1359

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 4, 1998·Published

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on March 10, 1954. On November 24, 1997, respondent was [91]*91convicted upon his plea of guilty in the Federal District Court for the Western District of New York of making a false written statement to the United States Government, in violation of 18 USC § 1001. On December 11, 1997, this Court entered an order suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b) and (e). Respondent appeared and argued that there is no corresponding New York State felony and that his conduct does not constitute a serious crime pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d).

We conclude that making a false written statement to the Government is essentially similar to offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree in violation of Penal Law § 175.35, a class E felony (see, Matter of Tracy, 218 AD2d 48; Matter of Knoll, 181 AD2d 136). Accordingly, respondent is automatically disbarred pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b) and (e).

Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ., concur.

Final order of disbarment entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b) and (e).

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on March 10, 1954. On November 24, 1997, respondent was [91]*91convicted upon his plea of guilty in the Federal District Court for the Western District of New York of making a false written statement to the United States Government, in violation of 18 USC § 1001. On December 11, 1997, this Court entered an order suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b) and (e). Respondent appeared and argued that there is no corresponding New York State felony and that his conduct does not constitute a serious crime pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d).

We conclude that making a false written statement to the Government is essentially similar to offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree in violation of Penal Law § 175.35, a class E felony (see, Matter of Tracy, 218 AD2d 48; Matter of Knoll, 181 AD2d 136). Accordingly, respondent is automatically disbarred pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b) and (e).

Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ., concur.

Final order of disbarment entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b) and (e).

In re Trammell, 240 A.D.2d 90, 667 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

240 A.D.2d 90 (In re Trammell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related