MATTER OF KEOGH, 17 N.Y.2d 479 (1965)

266 N.Y.S.2d 984, 214 N.E.2d 163

In the Matter of JAMES VINCENT KEOGH, an Attorney, Appellant. ROY M.D. RICHARDSON, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued November 23, 1965
Decided December 30, 1965

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department.

Page 480

Philip Handelman and Eric L. Keisman for appellant.

Solomon A. Klein and Roy M.D. Richardson, pro se, for Roy M.D. Richardson, respondent.

Page 481

MEMORANDUM. The order appealed from should be modified by eliminating therefrom such parts thereof as strike out paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the answer. The question certified must be answered in the negative. The Federal court judgment convicting appellant herein of this misdemeanor is prima facie proof of the crime charged (Matter of Donegan, 282 N.Y. 285, 293; also, 294 N.Y. 704, affg. 265 App. Div. 774) and of his unfitness to practice law. However, fairness and justice suggest that there be a wide range of inquiry as to facts which have a bearing on the ultimate issue of appellant’s fitness to continue as a member of the Bar. The appellant will be privileged to relitigate the issue of his guilt by introducing, if he can, evidence which was unavailable to him upon the trial in the Federal court, including proof of recantations or perjury by witnesses who had testified against him. Since it is impossible to predict in advance just how far the inquiry should go, the ends of justice will better be served by allowing the learned and experienced judicial officer, to whom this proceeding has been referred, to hear any offered proof which is reasonably relevant to the ultimate issues. It is for the Hearing Officer, subject to review by the Appellate Division, to consider and pass upon the materiality and bearing of such proof (Matter of Donegan, supra).

Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE, SCILEPPI and BERGAN concur.

Order modified in accordance with the MEMORANDUM herein and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Question certified answered in the negative.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

WOOD v. DUFF-GORDON, Wood v. Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88 (1917)

222 N.Y. 88 (1917) Dec 4, 1917 · New York Court of Appeals Otis F. Wood, Appellant,…

6 days ago

RAHABI v. MORRISON, 81 A.D.2d 434

81 A.D.2d 434 (1981) 440 N.Y.S. 2d 941 Aharon Rahabi, Appellant, v. Jack Morrison et…

1 week ago

MATTER OF SCHLINGER, 48 Misc.2d 345 (1965)

48 Misc.2d 345 (1965) In the Matter of The Estate of Joseph Schlinger, Deceased. Surrogate's…

1 week ago

BARTOLONE v. JECKOVICH, 481 N.Y.S. 2d 545 (1984).

103 A.D.2d 632 (1984)481 N.Y.S. 2d 545 Angelo J. Bartolone, Appellant, v. Lynne A. L.…

2 weeks ago

Matter of C.C. v D.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 05017 (Sept. 18, 2025)

Matter of C.C. v D.C. 2025 NY Slip Op 05017 Decided on September 18, 2025…

2 months ago

Japanese Med. Care PLLC v. Tamba, 2025 NY Slip Op 05015 (Sept. 18, 2025)

Japanese Med. Care PLLC v Tamba 2025 NY Slip Op 05015 Decided on September 18,…

2 months ago