Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981

In re Claybrook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided August 10, 1981

82 A.D.2d 447; 441 N.Y.S.2d 716; 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11373

Counsel

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Francis F. Doran for petitioner.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Committee on Legal Ethics of the W. Va. State Bar v. Higinbotham (W. Va. 1986)
In re McCabe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
In re Fahy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on June 16, 1965. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the respondent was charged with having been found guilty of violating section 7203 of title 26 of the United States Code, in that during the calendar year 1970, he knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully failed to file an income tax return with the Internal Revenue Service. The respondent was sentenced to be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for imprisonment for one year. Execution of the'sentence was suspended, the respondent was placed on probation for a period of five years and was directed to pay a fine in the sum of $10,000.

The Referee found that the charge had been fully sustained by the proof. The petitioner has moved to confirm the report of the Referee.

*448After 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 is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed, we are mindful of the heavy penalties already imposed on the respondent and his previously unblemished record. Accordingly, the respondent should be, and he hereby is, censured for his misconduct.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.