Greason v. Dickman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greason v. Dickman

21 A.D.2d 792, 250 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3643

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 1, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 792 (Greason v. Dickman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greason v. Dickman, 21 A.D.2d 792, 250 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a proceeding to discipline respondent, an attorney, for professional misconduct. The petition charges: (1) that respondent failed to turn over to his clients and converted to his own use moneys received in settlement of various actions and in the course of negotiations with respect to real estate and other transactions; (2) that he forged the indorsement of payees’ names on checks received by him as attorney; (3) that he used escrow and trust funds for his personal use; (4) that he commingled such funds; (5) that he committed larceny with respect to funds of his clients and funds of others entrusted to his care; and (6) that from time to time he issued checks which were dishonored. These charges are based upon evidence adduced before the Hon. Prank A. Gullotta, the Justice presiding at the Judicial Inquiry on Professional Conduct before the Additional Special Term of the Supreme Court, Nassau County. Although the petition and order to show cause were duly served upon respondent, he failed to appear in this proceeding or to answer the petition on the return day. Thereafter, and on May 25, 1964, respondent submitted a written verified answer in which he in effect has conceded the truth of some of the charges made against him. Accordingly, the respondent is disbarred and his name is directed to be struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

This is a proceeding to discipline respondent, an attorney, for professional misconduct. The petition charges: (1) that respondent failed to turn over to his clients and converted to his own use moneys received in settlement of various actions and in the course of negotiations with respect to real estate and other transactions; (2) that he forged the indorsement of payees’ names on checks received by him as attorney; (3) that he used escrow and trust funds for his personal use; (4) that he commingled such funds; (5) that he committed larceny with respect to funds of his clients and funds of others entrusted to his care; and (6) that from time to time he issued checks which were dishonored. These charges are based upon evidence adduced before the Hon. Prank A. Gullotta, the Justice presiding at the Judicial Inquiry on Professional Conduct before the Additional Special Term of the Supreme Court, Nassau County. Although the petition and order to show cause were duly served upon respondent, he failed to appear in this proceeding or to answer the petition on the return day. Thereafter, and on May 25, 1964, respondent submitted a written verified answer in which he in effect has conceded the truth of some of the charges made against him. Accordingly, the respondent is disbarred and his name is directed to be struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 792, 250 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greason-v-dickman-nyappdiv-1964.