Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MATTER ANDREW J. JENKINS (10/07/91)

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT No. 90-05203 1991.NY.50911 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 574 N.Y.S.2d 804; 171 A.D.2d 113 October 7, 1991 IN THE MATTER OF ANDREW J. JENKINS, A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE SECOND AND ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS, PETITIONER Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on February 6, 1974, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. By decision and order of this court dated October 22, 1990, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law pending the outcome of a disciplinary proceeding based upon his conviction of serious crimes as defined in Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d), and the issues raised by the petition and answer were referred to the Honorable Max H. Galfunt, a former Judge of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, as Special Referee to hear and report. Robert H. Straus (Khadijah Muhammad of counsel), for petitioner. William M. Kunstler for respondent. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur. Author: Per Curiam


Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on February 6, 1974, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. By decision and order of this court dated October 22, 1990, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law pending the outcome of a disciplinary proceeding based upon his conviction of serious crimes as defined in Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d), and the issues raised by the petition and answer were referred to the Honorable Max H. Galfunt, a former Judge of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, as Special Referee to hear and report.

Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Author: Per Curiam

 OPINION OF THE COURT

In this proceeding, the respondent was charged with one allegation of professional misconduct. The petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Special Referee, and the respondent submits an affirmation in opposition to the petitioner's motion.

Charge One alleged that the respondent was convicted of serious crimes, as defined in Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d). Specifically, on May 7, 1990, the respondent, after a trial by jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, was found guilty of interstate travel in aid of racketeering (18 USC § 1952 [a]) and violating the Glass-Steagall Act (12 USC § 378), both Federal felonies.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in agreement with the report of the Special Referee sustaining the charge of misconduct. The respondent is guilty of the misconduct outlined above. The petitioner's motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted.

The respondent is guilty of serious professional misconduct. Accordingly, the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.

Disposition

Ordered that petitioner's motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted; and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent Andrew J. Jenkins, is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further, Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent Andrew J. Jenkins is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.

19911007

© 1998 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.