Norwood, Matter of

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before KUPFERMAN; PER CURIAM
• Citation: 438 N.Y.S.2d 788,80 A.D.2d 278
• Parties: In the Matter of Ronald Leonard NORWOOD, an attorney and counselor at law. DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR the FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, Petitioner, v. Ronald Leonard NORWOOD, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 12 May 1981

Page 788

438 N.Y.S.2d 788 80 A.D.2d 278 In the Matter of Ronald Leonard NORWOOD, an attorney and
counselor at law.
DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR the FIRST JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT, Petitioner,
v.
Ronald Leonard NORWOOD, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
First Department. May 12, 1981.

Michael A. Gentile, New York City, for petitioner.

Saul Friedberg, New York City, for respondent.

Before KUPFERMAN, J. P., and BIRNS, SULLIVAN, MARKEWICH and SILVERMAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, moves to confirm the finding of a Hearing Panel and seeks to have respondent suspended from the practice of law.

Respondent was admitted to practice in the First Department on November 23, 1976.

In early 1978, in applying for the position of Assistant to the Deputy Mayor for Finance of the City of New York, respondent submitted a resume which misrepresented that he had received an undergraduate degree from Yale University, when he was actually two credits short. He also filed a questionnaire to which he gave answers under oath and in which he stated that he had filed all tax returns for the previous five years when, in fact, he had not filed State or Federal returns for 1976. He also stated that he had a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service regarding income averaging, when no dispute existed. Subsequently, when requested by the Department of Investigation on two occasions to provide copies of the returns he again assured the Department that the returns had been filed, but he did not submit them.

Respondent claims that his statement on the resume, although dishonest, should not be characterized as fraudulent and deceitful, nor as constituting professional misconduct because it was not a material factor in producing the job offer, and because the misrepresentation was corrected on the questionnaire. He also claims that since the statements regarding the tax returns were made after he had commenced employment, only his continuance at work, and not its commencement, was conditioned on the questionnaire.

Respondent makes distinctions without a significant difference in determining whether he has committed misconduct. He clearly is guilty of professional misconduct. Because of mitigating circumstances, however, we believe censure, rather than suspension, to be the appropriate sanction.

The misrepresentation on the resume was corrected on the questionnaire. Although respondent matriculated at Yale he...