Ungar, Matter of
| Decision Date | 26 April 1967 |
| Citation | 282 N.Y.S.2d 158,27 A.D.2d 925 |
| Parties | Matter of Sidney J. UNGAR, An Attorney. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Respondent's motion for reconsideration is denied. 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 but did on his application for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Napolitano v. Ward
...prosecution may not be used in a disciplinary or removal proceeding. And what authority does exist is to the contrary. In Re Ungar, 282 N.Y.S.2d 158 (S.Ct.App.Div. 1967), In Re Selig, 32 A.D.2d 213, 302 N.Y.S.2d 94 (S.Ct.App.Div.1969) and In Re Klebanoff, 21 N.Y.2d 920, 289 N.Y.S. 2d 755, 2......
-
Epstein, In re
...by petitioner in support of the charges was the respondent's testimony before the Grand Jury must be rejected. See Matter of Ungar, 27 A.D.2d 925, 282 N.Y.S.2d 158, leave to appeal denied 20 N.Y.2d 642, 282 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 229 N.E.2d 236, cert. denied 389 U.S. 1007, 88 S.Ct. 564, 19 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Selig, In re
...20 N.Y.2d 430, 438, 285 N.Y.S.2d 1, 6, 231 N.E.2d 718, 721, Cert. den. 390 U.S. 925, 88 S.Ct. 856, 19 L.Ed.2d 985; Matter of Ungar, 27 A.D.2d 925, 282 N.Y.S.2d 158, Lv. to app. den. Ungar v. Ass'n of the Bar, 20 N.Y.2d 642, Cert. den. 389 U.S. 1007, 88 S.Ct. 564, 19 L.Ed.2d 603; Matter of K......
-
Di Russo v. Kravitz
...of New York. June 1, 1967. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 27 A.D.2d 926, 927, 279 N.Y.S.2d 586, 282 N.Y.S.2d 158, 159. Action was brought to recover damages for alleged The Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Vincent A. Lupiano, J., after trial of......