Case Name: In the Matter of Ferdinand R. Goglio (Admitted as Ferdinand Richard Goglio), an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1984-09-17
Citations: 103 A.D.2d 295
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Ferdinand R. Goglio (Admitted as Ferdinand Richard Goglio), an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Ferdinand R. Goglio (Admitted as Ferdinand Richard Goglio), an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.
Second Department,
September 17, 1984
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Frank A. Finnerty, Jr. (Grace D. Moran of counsel), for petitioner.
Arnold Cohen for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on May 25, 1954 under the name Ferdinand Richard Goglio. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the petitioner and respondent move to confirm the report of the special referee.
Respondent was charged with having been convicted of a "serious crime", to wit, that on November 23, 1982, he pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to giving $5,000 to an Internal Revenue Service Appeals Officer in violation of subdivision (f) of section 201 of title 18 of the United States Code. On April 14,1983, respondent was sentenced to pay a $10,000 fine and to perform two years of unpaid full-time community service.
After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in full agreement with the findings contained in the report of the special referee. Respondent is guilty of the misconduct described above. Petitioner's and respondent's motions to confirm the special referee's report are granted.
In determining an appropriate measure of discipline, we have taken into consideration respondent's previously unblemished record as well as the other mitigating circumstances advanced by respondent.
Accordingly, the respondent should be, and he hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, nunc pro tunc, effective January 28,1983, and until further order of this court.
Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer, Mangano and Rubin, JJ., concur.