Colton v. Oshrin

155 Misc. 383, 278 N.Y.S. 146, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1959
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 28, 1934
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 155 Misc. 383 (Colton v. Oshrin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Colton v. Oshrin, 155 Misc. 383, 278 N.Y.S. 146, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1959 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1934).

Opinion

Hofstadter, J.

Despite my specific direction that Mr. Weiss appear before the court, he failed to put in an appearance. This significant circumstance, in conjunction with the matters set forth in the motion papers, compels the conclusion that Mr. Weiss is not an attorney and counselor at law, duly admitted ta practice in the courts of this State, and never has been.

[384]*384In view of this conclusion, it follows that all the proceedings had are nugatory and void. (Penal Law, §§ 271, 272; Kaplan v. Berman, 37 Misc. 502; People v. James, 150 id. 390, 393; Newburger v. Campbell, 9 Daly, 102; Puma v. McGonigle, 73 Misc. 35.)

It is not suggested that the defendant or his attorney of record was aware of the facts with reference to Mr. Weiss, nor is it especially important that the objection was not raised by plaintiff’s counsel sooner. The result is the same. The cases above cited presumably are based on the theory that it would be subversive of the correct administration of justice and of our courts to permit unauthorized persons to practice as attorneys therein. It is, therefore, not a matter of penalizing any one (other than the person guilty of the offense), but, rather, a matter of vindicating the dignity of the court and of an honorable profession that the rule has been established that all proceedings participated in by such an unauthorized person are rendered nugatory and ineffectual. In this view, therefore, actual prejudice to any party need not be shown, but is conclusively presumed.

The motion for a mistrial is, therefore, granted, and a new trial is ordered. The case is restored to the calendar of Special Term, for Trials, at Trial Term, Part II, for the 3d day of December, 1934. Order signed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Parkchester Preservation Co. v. Feldeine
31 Misc. 3d 859 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2011)
State Ex Rel. Mather v. Carnes
551 S.W.2d 272 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1977)
Dunn v. Eickhoff
43 A.D.2d 580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1973)
McKenzie v. Burris
500 S.W.2d 357 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1973)
Schifrin v. Chenille Mfg. Co.
117 F.2d 92 (Second Circuit, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 Misc. 383, 278 N.Y.S. 146, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colton-v-oshrin-nysupct-1934.