Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

32 A.D.2d 213

In re Selig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1969-06-26

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1979

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1969-06-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Capozzoli, J. (dissenting in part).

¶1I vote to confirm the report of the Referee, but am not in accord with the majority insofar as the matter of discipline is concerned. I feel that this case cannot be distinguished from Matter of Thaler (30 A D 2d 166) and, therefore, a similar discipline of three years’ suspension should be imposed. Paraphrasing the Aristotelian admonition, quoted by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice McNally, in his dissent in Matter of O’Doherty (14 A D 2d 4,12), there can be no greater injustice than to treat equal things unequally.

¶2Accordingly, I dissent in part, as indicated herein.

¶3Stevens, P. J., Eager and McNally, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; Capozzoli, J., dissents in part in opinion in which Nunez, J., concurs.

¶4Respondent disbarred, effective July 28,1969.

/32/ad2d/213 · .json · Public domain