In re Berger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Berger

246 A.D. 392, 286 N.Y.S. 177, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9511

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D. 392 (In re Berger) 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 Berger, 246 A.D. 392, 286 N.Y.S. 177, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

All of the charges against respondent except one are dismissed.

This court is satisfied that the failure of the respondent to place the case of his clients, Mr. and Mrs. Weintraub, upon the calendar was not willful, but due largely to his impaired physical health and other extenuating circumstances. When, however, respondent was specifically advised by the Bar Association of the complaint respecting his failure to place the case upon the calendar, instead of attending to the matter personally he instructed his son or a clerk to take care of it, which was not done.

The respondent is censured for his neglect of his clients’ case.

Present ■—Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Townley and Glennon, JJ.

Respondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

All of the charges against respondent except one are dismissed.

This court is satisfied that the failure of the respondent to place the case of his clients, Mr. and Mrs. Weintraub, upon the calendar was not willful, but due largely to his impaired physical health and other extenuating circumstances. When, however, respondent was specifically advised by the Bar Association of the complaint respecting his failure to place the case upon the calendar, instead of attending to the matter personally he instructed his son or a clerk to take care of it, which was not done.

The respondent is censured for his neglect of his clients’ case.

Present ■—Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Townley and Glennon, JJ.

Respondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 392, 286 N.Y.S. 177, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-berger-nyappdiv-1936.