Summary
In Matter of Gleason, 10 Mass. Att'y Discipline Rep. 141 (1994), the single justice imposed a two-year suspension on an attorney who misrepresented real estate acquisition costs to his investor partners and to lenders, retained part of the inflated sales prices for himself, forged an investor's signature to a document, and induced his secretary falsely to notarize the signature.
Summary of this case from In the Matter of ShawOpinion
December 5, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, as a matter of discretion, with costs, the claimant's motion for reargument is denied in its entirety, and the provision of the order dated January 6, 1993, which denied that branch of the claimant's application which was for leave to serve a notice of claim against the County of Putnam is reinstated.
The application for leave to serve a late notice of claim was made in October 1992, approximately 15 months after the occurrence which resulted in the claimant's injuries. The application was brought on by the third of the three attorneys consulted by the claimant. Considering these, and all the other circumstances of this case, we conclude that the claimant has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to the relief granted by the Supreme Court (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e; see also, Kardashinsky v New York City Hous. Auth., 182 A.D.2d 676; Matter of Wertenberger v Village of Briarcliff Manor, 175 A.D.2d 922). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.