In re Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Young

168 A.D.2d 26, 572 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9086

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

DecidedJune 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 26 (In re Young) 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 Young, 168 A.D.2d 26, 572 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this court on June 28, 1978. The petition in this matter was served on respondent by publication and by mailing a copy thereof to his last known address pursuant to an order of this court entered November 1, 1990. The order granted an application by the Grievance [27]*27Committee for substitute service alleging that respondent has fled the jurisdiction of this court to escape a Federal warrant for his arrest.

The petition alleges that in three separate actions respondent forged his clients’ name to general releases, notarized the signatures, delivered the forged releases to the respective insurance companies, forged his clients’ name to the checks issued by the insurance companies in settlement of the individual claims, and converted the proceeds of those checks. Respondent’s failure to appear, answer or otherwise move against the petition constitutes an admission of those charges (Matter of Supples, 102 AD2d 699; Matter of Hunt, 40 AD2d 9; Matter of Krieger, 38 AD2d 238). Accordingly, we find respondent guilty of violating DR 1-102 (A) (4); DR 1-102 (A) (6); DR 9-102 (A); DR 9-102 (B) (1) and DR 9-102 (B) (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he should be disbarred.

Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ., concur.

Order of disbarment entered.

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 practice by this court on June 28, 1978. The petition in this matter was served on respondent by publication and by mailing a copy thereof to his last known address pursuant to an order of this court entered November 1, 1990. The order granted an application by the Grievance [27]*27Committee for substitute service alleging that respondent has fled the jurisdiction of this court to escape a Federal warrant for his arrest.

The petition alleges that in three separate actions respondent forged his clients’ name to general releases, notarized the signatures, delivered the forged releases to the respective insurance companies, forged his clients’ name to the checks issued by the insurance companies in settlement of the individual claims, and converted the proceeds of those checks. Respondent’s failure to appear, answer or otherwise move against the petition constitutes an admission of those charges (Matter of Supples, 102 AD2d 699; Matter of Hunt, 40 AD2d 9; Matter of Krieger, 38 AD2d 238). Accordingly, we find respondent guilty of violating DR 1-102 (A) (4); DR 1-102 (A) (6); DR 9-102 (A); DR 9-102 (B) (1) and DR 9-102 (B) (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he should be disbarred.

Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ., concur.

Order of disbarment entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 26, 572 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-young-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack