In re Zukowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Zukowski

225 A.D.2d 1, 647 N.Y.2d 520, 647 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9747

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 1 (In re Zukowski) 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 Zukowski, 225 A.D.2d 1, 647 N.Y.2d 520, 647 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent H. Michael Zukowski was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Third Judicial Department on April 21, 1980. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

Petitioner Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i), suspending respondent from the practice of law for his willful failure to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation into three separate complaints of professional misconduct, i.e., respondent’s failure to account for funds entrusted to him, his failure to return an unearned retainer and his neglect of an estate matter and failure to provide an accounting for funds entrusted to him by the decedent. The Committee also seeks an order directing respondent to make restitution to two of the complainants pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a). Respondent has failed to answer two of these complaints and has failed to comply with the Committee’s requests to provide information relating to the complaints. Moreover, respondent has failed to interpose a response to the Committee’s motion to suspend.

The Disciplinary Committee also seeks an order directing respondent to make restitution to two of the complainants. Restitution cannot, however, be directed in the absence of a finding that respondent willfully misappropriated or misapplied money. (Judiciary Law § 90 [6-a],) Such a finding cannot be made at this stage of the proceeding.

Under the circumstances, the Committee’s motion should be granted to the extent of suspending respondent from the [3]*3practice of law, effective immediately, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i).

Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ., concur.

Motion granted only insofar as to suspend respondent, effective immediately, and until the further order of this Court; and insofar as it seeks a direction with respect to restitution, the motion is denied, as indicated.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent H. Michael Zukowski was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Third Judicial Department on April 21, 1980. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

Petitioner Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i), suspending respondent from the practice of law for his willful failure to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation into three separate complaints of professional misconduct, i.e., respondent’s failure to account for funds entrusted to him, his failure to return an unearned retainer and his neglect of an estate matter and failure to provide an accounting for funds entrusted to him by the decedent. The Committee also seeks an order directing respondent to make restitution to two of the complainants pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a). Respondent has failed to answer two of these complaints and has failed to comply with the Committee’s requests to provide information relating to the complaints. Moreover, respondent has failed to interpose a response to the Committee’s motion to suspend.

The Disciplinary Committee also seeks an order directing respondent to make restitution to two of the complainants. Restitution cannot, however, be directed in the absence of a finding that respondent willfully misappropriated or misapplied money. (Judiciary Law § 90 [6-a],) Such a finding cannot be made at this stage of the proceeding.

Under the circumstances, the Committee’s motion should be granted to the extent of suspending respondent from the [3]*3practice of law, effective immediately, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i).

Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ., concur.

Motion granted only insofar as to suspend respondent, effective immediately, and until the further order of this Court; and insofar as it seeks a direction with respect to restitution, the motion is denied, as indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 1, 647 N.Y.2d 520, 647 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-zukowski-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack