In re Wolfson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Wolfson

82 A.D.2d 587, 442 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11833

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

DecidedSeptember 8, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 587 (In re Wolfson) 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 Wolfson, 82 A.D.2d 587, 442 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on February 11,1975, under the name Donald M. Wolfson. In this disciplinary proceeding, respondent was charged with professional misconduct in that on April 27, 1979 he was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, in the County Court of Nassau County, of criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree, a class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to four months in the Nassau County Jail. On appeal, the sentence was reduced by this court to an unconditional discharge and, as so modified, the judgment of conviction was affirmed.

The Referee found that the charge was sustained. The petitioner moved to confirm the Referee’s report and the [588]*588respondent submitted an affidavit joining in the petitioner’s motion.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in full agreement with the report of the Referee. The respondent is guilty of the afore-mentioned charge of misconduct. The petitioner’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed, we are mindful of respondent’s previously unblemished record, the fact that he suffered a criminal conviction, the ample attestations to his good character and the fact that he resigned from his position as an Assistant District Attorney. Accordingly, the respondent should be, and he hereby is, censured for his misconduct.

Mollen, P.J., Hopkins, Damiani, Titone and Mangano, 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 February 11,1975, under the name Donald M. Wolfson. In this disciplinary proceeding, respondent was charged with professional misconduct in that on April 27, 1979 he was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, in the County Court of Nassau County, of criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree, a class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to four months in the Nassau County Jail. On appeal, the sentence was reduced by this court to an unconditional discharge and, as so modified, the judgment of conviction was affirmed.

The Referee found that the charge was sustained. The petitioner moved to confirm the Referee’s report and the [588]*588respondent submitted an affidavit joining in the petitioner’s motion.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in full agreement with the report of the Referee. The respondent is guilty of the afore-mentioned charge of misconduct. The petitioner’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed, we are mindful of respondent’s previously unblemished record, the fact that he suffered a criminal conviction, the ample attestations to his good character and the fact that he resigned from his position as an Assistant District Attorney. Accordingly, the respondent should be, and he hereby is, censured for his misconduct.

Mollen, P.J., Hopkins, Damiani, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 587, 442 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wolfson-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack