From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Sugarman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 6, 1972
38 A.D.2d 93 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Opinion

January 6, 1972.

John G. Bonomi for petitioner.


Petitioner Association of the Bar moves that respondent's name be struck from the roll of attorneys as mandated by subdivision 4 of section 90 Jud. of the Judiciary Law. Respondent was admitted to practice in this Department on June 29, 1942. After trial in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, respondent, on June 28, 1971, was convicted under counts 4 and 5 (taking unlawful fees), and, counts 7, 8, 12, 13 and 19 (bribe receiving) of an indictment filed against him on December 8, 1969. On September 14, 1971, Justice GEORGE M. CARNEY adjudged that respondent be sentenced to a term in prison as follows:

An indeterminate period of imprisonment for a maximum term of four years and minimum period of imprisonment of one year and committed to custody of the State Department of Correctional Services on counts four and five; to an indetermiate period of imprisonment for maximum term of four years and committed to custody of the State Department of Correctional Services on counts 7, 8, 12, 13 and 19. All sentences to run concurrently and all to be served in State prison with sentence imposed on count 4.

Nothing has been submitted by respondent in opposition and petitioner has filed with us a certified copy of the judgment showing respondent's convictions and sentence.

The crimes of bribe receiving and taking unlawful fees, of which respondent was convicted, are felonies under section 200.10 of the New York revised Penal Law, and section 1826 of the former New York Penal Law (1909).

When convicted of a crime cognizable as a felony under the law of New York, under the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 90 Jud. of the Judiciary Law of the State of New York, a respondent, upon said conviction, ceases to be an attorney and counselor at law, or to be competent to practice law as such in the State of New York ( Matter of Donegan, 282 N.Y. 285; Matter of Ginsberg, 1 N.Y.2d 144).

Accordingly, respondent's name should be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

McGIVERN, J.P., MARKEWICH, NUNEZ, KUPFERMAN and EAGER, JJ., concur.

Respondent's name struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York.


Summaries of

Matter of Sugarman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 6, 1972
38 A.D.2d 93 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)
Case details for

Matter of Sugarman

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of EUGENE L. SUGARMAN, an Attorney, Respondent. ASSOCIATION…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 6, 1972

Citations

38 A.D.2d 93 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)
327 N.Y.S.2d 862

Citing Cases

Matter of Sugarman

Per Curiam. This is a motion for an order vacating an order of this court dated January 6, 1972, which struck…

Matter of Sugarman

Movant was admitted to the Bar of this State on June 29, 1942. He was convicted on June 28, 1971 of bribe…