Matter of Barrett

Annotate this Case
Matter of Barrett 2012 NY Slip Op 06360 Decided on September 27, 2012 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: September 27, 2012

[*1]In the Matter of DENNIS J. BARRETT, an Attorney. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, Petitioner; DENNIS J. BARRETT, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 1892066)

Calendar Date: July 30, 2012
Before: Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ.


Peter M. Torncello, Committee on Professional
Standards, Albany (Michael K. Creaser of counsel), for petitioner.
Dennis J. Barrett, Avon-by-the-Sea, New Jersey,
respondent pro se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER



Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1983. He was previously admitted in New Jersey in 1977, where he maintains an office for the practice of law.

By order dated July 12, 2011, the New Jersey Supreme Court publicly reprimanded respondent for engaging in professional misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in connection with his mishandling of a real estate transaction. Specifically, he falsely certified the accuracy of the figures listed in the closing documents.

As a result of the discipline imposed in New Jersey, petitioner moves for an order imposing discipline pursuant to this Court's rules (see 22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has filed a reply affidavit which we conclude does not establish any of the available defenses to the imposition of discipline (see 22 NYCRR 806.19 [d]), and we therefore grant petitioner's motion.

Having considered all of the circumstances presented, including due consideration of respondent's misconduct and the discipline imposed in New Jersey, we conclude that respondent [*2]should be censured in this state (see e.g. Matter of Macchiaverna, 87 AD3d 1176 [2011]).

Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

ORDERED that petitioner's motion is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is hereby censured.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.