Case Name: In the Matter of Ronald Appel (Admitted as Ronald M. Appel), an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1976-07-01
Citations: 53 A.D.2d 37
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Ronald Appel (Admitted as Ronald M. Appel), an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 37–38

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Ronald Appel (Admitted as Ronald M. Appel), an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.
First Department,
July 1, 1976
John G. Bonomi for petitioner.
No one appearing on behalf of respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Respondent Ronald Appel was admitted to the Bar in the Second Department on June 22, 1960. Petitioner, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, seeks by this application to have this court discipline respondent on the basis of the record of hearings before the petitioner's Committee on Grievances held on October 15 and November 19, 1975, and March 10, 1976, at which respondent was present and evidence was received. Respondent at said hearings did not contest and admitted the substance of the charges urged against him and does not oppose the instant application. Study of the record of such hearings warrants concluding that the charges have been sustained. Although retained in 1964 in connection with an estate matter, respondent failed and neglected to wind up said estate and even subsequent to June 9, 1975, when first notified of charges, failed to conclude said estate, although given further opportunity to do so. The lack of diligence in respect of this estate was compounded by respondent's failure to co-operate with the Committee on Grievances in its investigation. However, respondent's record is otherwise unblemished, and it appears that he has initiated action with a view toward resolving this matter.
Accordingly, we conclude that the petition should be granted and that respondent should be censured.
Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ., concur.
Respondent censured.