Ungar, Matter of

Decision Date25 April 1967
PartiesIn the Matter of Sidney J. UNGAR, an Attorney.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Respondent's motion for reconsideration is denied. 269 N.Y.S.2d 163. The motion is grounded on Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 87 S.Ct. 625, 17 L.Ed.2d 574. Respondent expressly abandoned his reliance on his federal privilege against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States). He did not raise the question in the Court of Appeals or on his application for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, Ungar v. Ass'n of Bar of City of New York, 385 U.S. 1006, 87 S.Ct. 712, 17 L.Ed.2d 545. Spevack prohibits a waiver of the privilege under the compulsion of the threat of loss of employment. It does not inhibit the use in a disciplinary proceeding of testimony resulting from respondent's immunity from prosecution therefor. The Fifth Amendment proscribes compelled testimony in 'any criminal case'. Although forfeiture proceedings have been held to be in the nature of criminal proceedings (One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 14 L.Ed.2d 170), it has not been held that a disciplinary proceeding is in the nature of a criminal cause. The constitutional question respondent belatedly seeks to revive does not affect the charges based on the contempt adjudication against the respondent (Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921) and respondent's contumacious conduct in the trial of People v. Jack, 12 N.Y.2d 721, 233 N.Y.S.2d 772, 186 N.E.2d 128, heretofore sustained (Matter of Ungar, 25 A.D.2d 322, 269 N.Y.S.2d 163, app. dismissed 18 N.Y.2d 690, cert. denied 385 U.S. 1006, 87 S.Ct. 712, 17 L.Ed.2d 545), and are sufficient to warrant disbarment.

BOTEIN, P.J., and RABIN, McNALLY, EAGER, and STEUER, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Anonymous Attorneys v. Bar Ass'n of Erie County
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 5 Abril 1977
    ...L.Ed.2d 1196; People ex rel. Karlin v. Culkin, 248 N.Y. 465, 162 N.E. 487; Matter of Rouss, 221 N.Y. 81, 116 N.E. 782; Matter of Ungar, 27 A.D.2d 925, 282 N.Y.S.2d 155, cert. den., 389 U.S. 1007, 88 S.Ct. 564, 19 L.Ed.2d 603). We hold that disciplinary sanctions are not punishment within th......
  • Ungar, Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 26 Abril 1967
  • Bar Ass'n of Erie County v. Gelman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 8 Mayo 1967
    ...52 N.E. 1106, 1107; Matter of Rouss, 221 N.Y. 81, 86, 116 N.E. 782; Matter of Wysell, 10 A.D.2d 199, 198 N.Y.S.2d 456; Matter of Ungar, 27 A.D.2d 925, 282 N.Y.S.2d 155). Use in this proceeding of prior testimony and records is not proscribed by any constitutional or statutory provision and ......
  • Graham v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 25 Abril 1967

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT