In re Brooklyn Bar Ass'n in Respect of Virdone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Brooklyn Bar Ass'n in Respect of Virdone

261 A.D. 961, 25 N.Y.S.2d 843, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8340

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 961 (In re Brooklyn Bar Ass'n in Respect of Virdone) 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 Virdone, 261 A.D. 961, 25 N.Y.S.2d 843, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

■ Respondent was admitted to the bar June 5, 1912. It is undisputed that through the neglect of respondent considerable loss came to three estates of incompetents of which he was a committee. The loss was made good by a surety company which has made adjustments with respondent. There is also a charge that respondent used $300 of an incompetent’s estate, and failed to account for it for over two years, at a time when objections were made to his account. The court does not agree with the official referee’s conclusion as to this charge but is in accord with the referee’s report to the extent that it recommends suspension. The respondent is suspended from the practice of the law for the period of one year. Present —■ Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.

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

■ Respondent was admitted to the bar June 5, 1912. It is undisputed that through the neglect of respondent considerable loss came to three estates of incompetents of which he was a committee. The loss was made good by a surety company which has made adjustments with respondent. There is also a charge that respondent used $300 of an incompetent’s estate, and failed to account for it for over two years, at a time when objections were made to his account. The court does not agree with the official referee’s conclusion as to this charge but is in accord with the referee’s report to the extent that it recommends suspension. The respondent is suspended from the practice of the law for the period of one year. Present —■ Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 961, 25 N.Y.S.2d 843, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brooklyn-bar-assn-in-respect-of-virdone-nyappdiv-1941.