Zuckerman, In re
| Decision Date | 03 March 1965 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Landon ZUCKERMAN and Sam Haber, Attorneys. Samuel GREASON, Petitioner, v. Landon ZUCKERMAN and Sam Haber, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before CHRIST, Acting P. J., and BRENNAN, HILL, RABIN and HOPKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
This is a proceeding to discipline respondents, attorneys, based on nine charges or specifications of professional misconduct (Nos. 5-A to 5-I) arising out of he recent Judicial Inquiry into Unethical Practices of Attorneys in Nassau County. The Special Referee to whom the issues were referred has held extensive hearings and has filed his report.
The Referee found that one of the charges (5-A) was sustained insofar as the respondent Zuckerman was concerned, but recommended its dismissal as to the respondent Haber. As to both respondents, the Referee found that three of the other charges (5-B, 5-F and 5-H) were sustained by the proof. The Referee recommended dismissal of the remaining five charges (5-C, 5-D, 5-E, 5-G and 5-I). He recommended the respondent Zuckerman's disbarment on charges 5-A, 5-B, 5-F and 5-H, and the suspension of the respondent Haber from the practice of law for a period of two years with respect to charges 5-B, 5-F and 5-H.
Petitioner now moves: (1) to confirm the Referee's report with respect to the Referee's findings as to charges 5-A, 5-B, 5-D, 5-F and 5-H; and (2) to disaffirm the report only insofar as the Referee found three of the charges (5-C, 5-E and 5-I) not to be sustained, and insofar as he recommended their dismissal. Apparently, petitioner is content to rest on the Referee's recommendation of dismissal of charge 5-A insofar as the respondent Haber is concerned, and on the Referee's recommendation of dismissal of charges 5-D and 5-G.
The respondents have each made a cross motion to affirm in part and to disaffirm in part the Referee's findings, and to dismiss the petition.
The charges which the Referee sustained are: (1) that respondent Zuckerman deliberately refused to cooperate with the court in its efforts to expose unethical practices and to determine whether he had committed any acts of professional misconduct which destroyed the character and fitness required of him as a condition to his retention of the privilege of remaining a member of the Bar [5-A]; (2) that both respondents submitted misleading, exaggerated and false medical bills and statements covering lost time and earnings for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zuckerman v. Greason
...Landon Zuckerman was disbarred and appellant Sam Haber was suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years (23 A.D.2d 825, 259 N.Y.S.2d 963.) Charges numbered 5--B, 5--F and 5--H were sustained against both defendants and charge 5--A was sustained as to Zuckerman only. The oth......
-
Zuckerman v. Appellate Div., Sec. Dept., S. Ct. of St. of NY
...practice, disbarred Landon Zuckerman and suspended Sam Haber from the practice of law for five years. (In the Matter of Zuckerman and Haber, 23 A.D.2d 825, 259 N.Y.S.2d 963 (2d Dep't), motions for leave to appeal denied, 16 N.Y.2d 483 (1965).) Thereafter, on February 13, 1967, the United St......
-
Zuckermann v. Greason
...Department, 27 A.D.2d 848, 280 N.Y.S.2d 904. Disciplinary proceeding was brought against two attorneys. The Appellate Division, 23 A.D.2d 825, 259 N.Y.S.2d 963, entered a judgment adverse to the Appeals were taken to the Court of Appeals, 16 N.Y.2d 482, 483, 261 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 1027, 209 N.E......
-
Zuckerman, Matter of
...therein, and suspended respondent Haber for five years based on its finding that he was guilty of charges 5B, 5F and 5H (23 A.D.2d 825, 259 N.Y.S.2d 963 where the charges are set out in full). The Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal (16 N.Y.2d 482, 483, 261 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 1027, 209 N.E.......