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.

In the Matter of Joseph I. Rosenzweig (Admitted As Joseph Isaac Rosenzweig)

February 26, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH I. ROSENZWEIG (ADMITTED AS JOSEPH ISAAC ROSENZWEIG), AN ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LAW: DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, PETITIONER, JOSEPH I. ROSENZWEIG, RESPONDENT.


Per curiam.

Matter of Rosenzweig

Decided on February 26, 2013

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Rolando T. Acosta,Justice Presiding, Dianne T. Renwick Leland G. DeGrasse Helen E. Freedman Rosalyn H. Richter,Justices.

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Joseph I. Rosenzweig, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on July 18, 1983.

M-2811(July 16, 2012) M-3201

IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH I. ROSENZWEIG

PER CURIAM

Respondent Joseph I. Rosenzweig was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on July 18, 1983 under the name Joseph Isaac Rosenzweig. At all times relevant herein, he maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

In its statement of charges dated August 12, 2011, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee brought three disciplinary charges that stem from respondent's entry into a bigamous marriage in Jamaica. Charge one alleges that by entering into the bigamous marriage in violation of Jamaican law, while he was still legally married in New York, respondent engaged in "illegal conduct that adversely reflects" on his "honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer," in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(a)(3) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a][3]). Charge two alleges that respondent engaged in "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation," in violation of DR 1-102(a)(4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][4]), in that he falsely informed a Jamaican government official that he was a "bachelor" in order to effectuate the bigamous marriage. Charge three alleges that by violating the previously cited disciplinary rules, respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of DR 1-102(a)(7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][7]). By answer dated August 24, 2011, respondent admitted all of the factual allegations and liability to the charges, but denied that he intended to enter into an illegal marriage in Jamaica or that he intended to violate Jamaican law.

The underlying facts are undisputed. Respondent married Theresa Wong in 1985. In or about 1995 he entered into an amorous relationship with Radiah Givens. Although married to Wong, respondent traveled with Givens to Jamaica, falsely informed a Jamaican government official that he was a "bachelor," executed marriage documents indicating that he was then a bachelor, and participated in a ceremony by which he and Givens were "officially married" under Jamaican law. According to respondent, Givens understood that their purported marriage was not a legal union, and they had no plans to cohabit after the Jamaican ceremony.

The Referee issued a report in which he sustained all three charges and recommended a public censure. The Referee noted that the state interests underlying Jamaica's bigamy statute appeared to relate to the protection of spouses and families by reason of abandonment of the first marriage or financial fraud on a subsequent spouse, and concluded that "[h]ere the parties to the purported marriage were in Jamaica only briefly, and there was no impact on the Jamaican citizenry. And because the parties to the ceremony did not seek to change their pre-existing relationship and Respondent did not intend to ...


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.