From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Wojcik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 3, 2000
271 A.D.2d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

April 3, 2000.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this court in 1974 and maintains a business address in Cropseyville, Rensselaer County.

Mark S. Ochs, Committee on Professional Standards (Geoffrey Major of counsel), Albany, for petitioner.

BEFORE: MERCURE, J.P., CREW III, PETERS, SPAIN AND GRAFFEO, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, moves to suspend respondent from practice pending his full compliance with a subpoena duces tecum served upon him in furtherance of its investigation into his conduct as an attorney (see, 22 NYCRR 806.4 [b], [e]). Respondent appeared at an examination before petitioner pursuant to the subpoena but has failed to produce all of the subpoenaed documentation and has also failed to respond to petitioner's motion. Under such circumstances, we exercise our discretion and grant the motion, the suspension to be effective 20 days from the date of this order (see, e.g., Matter of Nagoda, 238 A.D.2d 667, 241 A.D.2d 619; Matter of Roberts, 224 A.D.2d 801).

ORDERED that petitioner's motion is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is suspended from practice, effective twenty (20) days from the date of this order, pending his full compliance with the subpoena duces tecum dated February 8, 2000, and until further order of this court; and it is further

ORDERED that for the period of suspension respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and he is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission, or other public authority or to give to another any opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this court's rules ( 22 NYCRR 806.9) regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys.


Summaries of

Matter of Wojcik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 3, 2000
271 A.D.2d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Wojcik

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF WALTER S. WOJCIK, AN ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LAW…

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

Date published: Apr 3, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
706 N.Y.S.2d 364

Citing Cases

Matter of Drucker

He has not replied to petitioner's motion, which was personally served upon him. Under such circumstances, we…

Matter of Cannon

Further, respondent has failed to pay two stenographers' bills as required (see, 22 NYCRR 806.4 [e]) and his…