In re Kaye, 217 A.D.2d 197 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Kaye, 217 A.D.2d 197 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In re Shubov (nyappdiv, 2005-10-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Shubov
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Nevertheless, where the elements of an out-of-jurisdiction felony do not precisely correspond to the elements of a New York felony, this Court may look beyond the elements and consider admissions made in the plea allocution (see Matter of Mercado, 1 AD3d 54, 55-56 [2003]; Matter of Peiffer, 274 AD2d 158, 159 [2000]), which may also be read in conjunction with the indictment (Matter of Kaye, 217 AD2d 197, 198 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Taube
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as respondent’s Virginia conviction is “essentially similar” to the New York felony of grand larceny in the fourth degree, respondent’s felony Virginia conviction constitutes a felony in New York (see Penal Law § 155.30; Matter of Kaye, 217 AD2d 197, 198 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Virag
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
We find, however, that the elements of grand larceny in the third degree are satisfied by respondent’s admissions in the plea allocution, when read in conjunction with count one of the information charging that respondent and his brother withheld approximately $16,745 from their client by making misrepresentations and material omissions in furtherance of their scheme to retain greater sums of money than the amount to which they were entitled in connection with the client’s monetary recovery for a personal injury claim (see Matter of Kaye, 217 AD2d 197, 198 [1995]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Duker
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Respondent’s mail fraud conviction also constitutes a predicate for automatic disbarment since it arises from conduct, admitted by respondent, satisfying the elements of grand larceny in the first degree (see, Penal Law § 155.42; see, e.g., Matter of Kaye, 217 AD2d 197 ; Matter of Benson, 207 AD2d 81; Matter of Meyer, 200 AD2d 17 ; see also, Matter of Sinker, 209 AD2d 85 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of William S. Kaye (Admitted as William Spiegler Kaye), a Suspended Attorney, Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 30, 1995.
217 A.D.2d 197
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Barbara S. Gillers of counsel (Hal R. Lieberman, attorney), for petitioner., No appearance for respondent.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

[*198] OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice at this Department in 1967, under the name William Spiegler Kaye. In December 1993 he was suspended from such practice on incontrovertible evidence of serious professional misconduct, viz., commingling of client funds, conversion and failure to account (194 AD2d 99). On November 16, 1994, respondent pleaded guilty, in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the Federal felony of mail fraud (18 USC § 1341). During the course of his plea, he acknowledged 19 fraudulent transfers to his own personal accounts of funds he held in trust for debtors or assignees in bankruptcy, totaling $377,397. On April 21, 1995 respondent was sentenced to five years’ probation and ordered to make full restitution to the defrauded parties.

While the Federal crime of mail fraud has no New York felony analog (Matter of Teplin, 82 AD2d 296, 297), it is nonetheless a "serious crime” under New York law (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] Ed]). Petitioner now seeks respondent’s automatic disbarment (§ 90 [4] [b]), on the ground that the criminal activity acknowledged in the plea constituted felonious behavior under New York law (§ 90 [4] [e]). Respondent has declined to contest the petition.

•Respondent’s admissions in the Federal plea allocution, when read in conjunction with the counts of the information charging fraudulent invasion and transfer of trust funds for personal use, satisfy the elements of grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 155.05, 155.40), a class C felony. This constitutes a predicate for automatic disbarment under Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b) (Matter of Benson, 207 AD2d 81; Matter of Catalfo, 181 AD2d 213). Accordingly, the petition is granted and respondent’s name is ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys authorized to practice law in this State.

Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ., concur.

Petition granted to the extent it seeks to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, and respondent’s name is so directed to be stricken.