Case Name: In the Matter of Charles Sutton, an Attorney, Respondent. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1979-11-13
Citations: 70 A.D.2d 467
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Charles Sutton, an Attorney, Respondent. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 467–468

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Charles Sutton, an Attorney, Respondent. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.
Second Department,
November 13, 1979
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Frank A. Finnerty, Jr. (Gary L. Casella of counsel), for petitioner.
Singer & Block (Irving B. Singer of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on October 22, 1952. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm in part and disaffirm in part the report of the Referee to whom the issues were referred for hearing and report and respondent cross-moves to disaffirm in part and affirm in part said report.
The Referee found respondent guilty of converting to his own use escrow funds in the amount of $1,500 from the proposed purchaser of real property without the knowledge or consent of the purchaser's attorney and neglecting a legal matter for which he had been retained, resulting in prejudice to his clients. Another allegation of misconduct was not sustained by the Referee.
After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in full agreement with the report of the Referee. Petitioner's motion and respondent's cross motion are granted to the extent that the Referee's report is confirmed. The motion and cross motion are otherwise denied.
In determining an appropriate measure of the discipline, we have taken into consideration respondent's prior unblemished record, the excellent character references attesting to his trustworthiness and certain other mitigating circumstances. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the respondent should be, and he hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years commencing December 15, 1979 and until the further order of this court.
Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Mangano, Cohalan and Gibbons, JJ., concur.