In re Zapata

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Zapata

47 A.D.2d 141, 365 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8729

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 A.D.2d 141 (In re Zapata) 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 Zapata, 47 A.D.2d 141, 365 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By our order of December 30, 1974 (46 A D 2d 333), both respondents were directed to be suspended from the practice of law for the period of one year. The charges were neglect of professional duty in respect of a case in which retained, and obstruction of an official inquiry by the offer of money to a complainant. Respondents have moved for reconsideration on the basis of additional papers, as well as submissions by amici curiae. We have examined these materials and have reconsidered, and the motion is granted to the extent hereinafter set forth.

We found erroneously that respondent Halbert was involved in both charges. As is commendably conceded by petitioner, [142]*142that respondent was. concerned only in the second of the twocharges, the offei' of money to the complainant.. As toZapafa, his- involvement in- that charge apparently/consisted",of tittle' more- than approval of and. consent to Halbert’s’endeavor, to-mollify the complainant; this is not, however; to lessen, his, involvement in the,neglect charge.-, Thus, each respondent participated as the chief actor in xme of two separate facets of what is actually one continuing' episode of'/prpfessioual misconduct. We regard each of these two aspects, neglect of duty and obstruction of inqiiiry, as of equal gravity, and we are persuaded therefore that the'"same sanction should;,be imposed in each case. . We have, however, ré-éxamined 'the history of . the respondents? otherwise impeccable, professional history, /as. well as their . unselfish and uncompensated community service and, on recom sideration, we conclude that Our prior order-should be modified to reduce the suspension' therein imposed to a- period, of three, months each, to commence May 30,1975.

Markewich, J. P., Lupiano, Tilzeb and Capozzoli, JJ,, concur,

Motion granted and, upon reargument, order of this court . entered On December 30, 1974, is. modified - insofar, as to reduce the suspension of respondents from practice as attorneys and . counselors at law in the Staté~of New York to a period of three; (3) months eaph, effectiveMay 30,1975/ -

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

Per Curiam.

By our order of December 30, 1974 (46 A D 2d 333), both respondents were directed to be suspended from the practice of law for the period of one year. The charges were neglect of professional duty in respect of a case in which retained, and obstruction of an official inquiry by the offer of money to a complainant. Respondents have moved for reconsideration on the basis of additional papers, as well as submissions by amici curiae. We have examined these materials and have reconsidered, and the motion is granted to the extent hereinafter set forth.

We found erroneously that respondent Halbert was involved in both charges. As is commendably conceded by petitioner, [142]*142that respondent was. concerned only in the second of the twocharges, the offei' of money to the complainant.. As toZapafa, his- involvement in- that charge apparently/consisted",of tittle' more- than approval of and. consent to Halbert’s’endeavor, to-mollify the complainant; this is not, however; to lessen, his, involvement in the,neglect charge.-, Thus, each respondent participated as the chief actor in xme of two separate facets of what is actually one continuing' episode of'/prpfessioual misconduct. We regard each of these two aspects, neglect of duty and obstruction of inqiiiry, as of equal gravity, and we are persuaded therefore that the'"same sanction should;,be imposed in each case. . We have, however, ré-éxamined 'the history of . the respondents? otherwise impeccable, professional history, /as. well as their . unselfish and uncompensated community service and, on recom sideration, we conclude that Our prior order-should be modified to reduce the suspension' therein imposed to a- period, of three, months each, to commence May 30,1975.

Markewich, J. P., Lupiano, Tilzeb and Capozzoli, JJ,, concur,

Motion granted and, upon reargument, order of this court . entered On December 30, 1974, is. modified - insofar, as to reduce the suspension of respondents from practice as attorneys and . counselors at law in the Staté~of New York to a period of three; (3) months eaph, effectiveMay 30,1975/ -

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 141, 365 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-zapata-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack