In re Bayly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Bayly

49 A.D.2d 785, 372 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10820

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 785 (In re Bayly) 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

In re Bayly, 49 A.D.2d 785, 372 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court on June 26, 1950. Petitioner moves to confirm the report of the referee which, based on respondent’s admissions, sustained two charges of professional misconduct consisting of neglect of an estate for which he was attorney and failure to respond to inquiries concerning the status of the estate (Charge I), and commingling and conversion of estate funds (Charge H). In mitigation, it appears that respondent’s misconduct occurred during a period when his wife was seriously ill; that at all times respondent had the ability to meet his obligations to the estate; that he repaid the moneys and settled the estate; that none of the beneficiaries of the estate suffered any pecuniary loss as the result of his misconduct; and that, prior to the hearing, the complainant had requested petitioner to discontinue the matter since the estate had been satisfactorily completed. The motion to confirm the referee’s report is granted. Taking into consideration respondent’s good reputation and his otherwise unblemished record as a member of the Bar for 25 years, as well as the mitigating circumstances to which he testified, we have determined that a censure is the appropriate measure of discipline. Respondent censured. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court on June 26, 1950. Petitioner moves to confirm the report of the referee which, based on respondent’s admissions, sustained two charges of professional misconduct consisting of neglect of an estate for which he was attorney and failure to respond to inquiries concerning the status of the estate (Charge I), and commingling and conversion of estate funds (Charge H). In mitigation, it appears that respondent’s misconduct occurred during a period when his wife was seriously ill; that at all times respondent had the ability to meet his obligations to the estate; that he repaid the moneys and settled the estate; that none of the beneficiaries of the estate suffered any pecuniary loss as the result of his misconduct; and that, prior to the hearing, the complainant had requested petitioner to discontinue the matter since the estate had been satisfactorily completed. The motion to confirm the referee’s report is granted. Taking into consideration respondent’s good reputation and his otherwise unblemished record as a member of the Bar for 25 years, as well as the mitigating circumstances to which he testified, we have determined that a censure is the appropriate measure of discipline. Respondent censured. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 785, 372 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bayly-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack