In re Windheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Windheim

102 A.D.2d 55, 476 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18327

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

DecidedJune 4, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.2d 55 (In re Windheim) 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 Windheim, 102 A.D.2d 55, 476 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on March 29,1961. In this proceeding to discipline respondent for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the special referee.

The special referee sustained four charges of professional misconduct as follows: neglecting an estate matter entrusted to him; failing to cooperate with the petitioner in its investigation of this complaint; failing to promptly turn over the estate files to a successor attorney; and failing to file an attorney registration statement as required by the rules of this court.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in full agreement with the findings contained in the report of the [56]*56special referee. Respondent is guilty of the misconduct described above. Petitioner’s motion to confirm the special referee’s report is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed, we have taken into consideration the serious medical problems of both respondent and his son at the time the misconduct took place. Accordingly, the respondent should be, and he hereby is, censured for his misconduct.

Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer, Mangano and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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