In re Bien

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Bien

7 A.D.2d 293, 182 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9840

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 293 (In re Bien) 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 Bien, 7 A.D.2d 293, 182 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent has admitted that in representing taxicab companies as attorney in connection with property damage claims, he submitted some 15 identical claims, supported by identical itemizations of repairs in cases where the damage was substantially similar. These claims were also incorporated in verified bills of particulars. Respondent states that he adopted this practice because of difficulty in obtaining estimates of repairs from taxicab companies, who did their own work. He [294]*294states that there was no intent to deceive anyone, since this practice was adopted only as a quick, practical means of initiating claims which were subsequently checked through expert and competent inspection of the damaged vehicles by the insurance companies representing the defendants. The practice of making unsubstantiated claims is strongly to be condemned. If not conceived as a fraudulent device, it indicates at the least a carelessness and a slipshod attitude towards the truth and court processes which is not to be condoned in an attorney. To respondent’s credit are his candor and co-operation when confronted with the charges, and the fact that this is the first complaint made against him in over 22 years of practice. Under the circumstances, we believe disciplinary measures are indicated. Respondent should be suspended for a period of six months.

Botéin, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of six months.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent has admitted that in representing taxicab companies as attorney in connection with property damage claims, he submitted some 15 identical claims, supported by identical itemizations of repairs in cases where the damage was substantially similar. These claims were also incorporated in verified bills of particulars. Respondent states that he adopted this practice because of difficulty in obtaining estimates of repairs from taxicab companies, who did their own work. He [294]*294states that there was no intent to deceive anyone, since this practice was adopted only as a quick, practical means of initiating claims which were subsequently checked through expert and competent inspection of the damaged vehicles by the insurance companies representing the defendants. The practice of making unsubstantiated claims is strongly to be condemned. If not conceived as a fraudulent device, it indicates at the least a carelessness and a slipshod attitude towards the truth and court processes which is not to be condoned in an attorney. To respondent’s credit are his candor and co-operation when confronted with the charges, and the fact that this is the first complaint made against him in over 22 years of practice. Under the circumstances, we believe disciplinary measures are indicated. Respondent should be suspended for a period of six months.

Botéin, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of six months.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 293, 182 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bien-nyappdiv-1959.