In re Brooklyn Bar Ass'n in Respect of Jaffe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Brooklyn Bar Ass'n in Respect of Jaffe

245 A.D. 831

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D. 831 (In re Brooklyn Bar Ass'n in Respect of Jaffe) 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 Brooklyn Bar Ass'n in Respect of Jaffe, 245 A.D. 831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent disbarred and his name ordered struck from the roll of attorneys. The court is of the opinion that respondent, in behalf of his father, willfully defrauded his client by giving the latter a third mortgage of little or no value on certain premises while representing to him it was a second mortgage on another and more valuable parcel. As a result the client lost his money. Carswell, Tompkins and Johnston, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Young, J., dissent and vote to suspend the respondent from the practice of the law for a period of two years, with the following memorandum: There is grave doubt that respondent defrauded his client. He was, however, willfully careless in handling the transaction as he was also in his professional service to other clients.

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

Respondent disbarred and his name ordered struck from the roll of attorneys. The court is of the opinion that respondent, in behalf of his father, willfully defrauded his client by giving the latter a third mortgage of little or no value on certain premises while representing to him it was a second mortgage on another and more valuable parcel. As a result the client lost his money. Carswell, Tompkins and Johnston, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Young, J., dissent and vote to suspend the respondent from the practice of the law for a period of two years, with the following memorandum: There is grave doubt that respondent defrauded his client. He was, however, willfully careless in handling the transaction as he was also in his professional service to other clients.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D. 831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brooklyn-bar-assn-in-respect-of-jaffe-nyappdiv-1935.