Legal Opinion
In re Rater
New York Court of Appeals
Decided February 12, 1987PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
The charges stem from petitioner’s failure to make timely deposits in the court account and timely reports and remittances to the State Comptroller over a two-year period after a recent censure for the same misconduct. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct has determined that the appropriate sanction should be removal. It is conceded that these charges are justified and that they require disciplinary action. The only issue, therefore, is the appropriate sanction.
The severity of the sanction imposed for this variety of misconduct depends upon the presence or absence of…
3Cases cited5 opinions
- Kuehnel v. State Commision on Judicial ConductNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Quinn v. State Commission on Judicial ConductNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- In re CooleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Petrie v. State Commission on Judicial ConductNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Rogers v. State Commission on Judicial ConductNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
4Cited by4 opinions
- Matter of MurphyNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- In re LenneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- In re VincentNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Matter of AstacioNew York Court of Appeals · 2018