In re Ungar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ungar

27 A.D.2d 925, 282 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361

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

DecidedApril 26, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 925 (In re Ungar) 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 Ungar, 27 A.D.2d 925, 282 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent’s motion for reconsideration is denied. The motion is grounded on Spevack v. Klein (385 U. S. 511). Respondent expressly abandoned his reliance on his Federal privilege against self incrimination (U. S. Const., 5th Amdt.). He did not raise the question in the Court of Appeals but did on his application for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. Spevaek prohibits a waiver of the privilege under the compulsion of the threat of loss of employment. It does not inhibit the use in a disciplinary proceeding of testimony resulting from respondent’s immunity from prosecution therefor. The Fifth Amendment proscribes compelled testimony in “ any criminal case ”, Although forfeiture proceedings have been held to be in the nature of criminal proceedings (Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U. S. 693), it has not been held that a disciplinary proceeding is in the nature of a criminal cause. The constitutional question respondent belatedly seeks to revive does not affect the charges based on the contempt adjudication against the respondent (Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U. S. 575) and respondent’s contumacious conduct in the trial of People v. Jack (12 N Y 2d 721) heretofore sustained (Matter of Ungar, 25 A D 2d 322, app. dsmd. 18 N Y 2d 690, cert. den. 385 U. S. 1006), and are sufficient to warrant disbarment. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Respondent’s motion for reconsideration is denied. The motion is grounded on Spevack v. Klein (385 U. S. 511). Respondent expressly abandoned his reliance on his Federal privilege against self incrimination (U. S. Const., 5th Amdt.). He did not raise the question in the Court of Appeals but did on his application for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. Spevaek prohibits a waiver of the privilege under the compulsion of the threat of loss of employment. It does not inhibit the use in a disciplinary proceeding of testimony resulting from respondent’s immunity from prosecution therefor. The Fifth Amendment proscribes compelled testimony in “ any criminal case ”, Although forfeiture proceedings have been held to be in the nature of criminal proceedings (Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U. S. 693), it has not been held that a disciplinary proceeding is in the nature of a criminal cause. The constitutional question respondent belatedly seeks to revive does not affect the charges based on the contempt adjudication against the respondent (Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U. S. 575) and respondent’s contumacious conduct in the trial of People v. Jack (12 N Y 2d 721) heretofore sustained (Matter of Ungar, 25 A D 2d 322, app. dsmd. 18 N Y 2d 690, cert. den. 385 U. S. 1006), and are sufficient to warrant disbarment. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 925, 282 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ungar-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack