In re Corrigan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Corrigan

36 A.D.2d 111, 318 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4584

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A.D.2d 111 (In re Corrigan) 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 Corrigan, 36 A.D.2d 111, 318 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4584 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice in the . First Judicial Department on December 9, 1957. The crux of the charge of professional misconduct against respondent is that after he was paid a total of $450 (which has been repaid) towards a fee and the cost of trial minutes, he failed to purchase the minutes or take any other steps to prosecute the appeal of his client, which was dismissed. The report of the Referee finding the charge to have been sustained is supported by the evidence and is confirmed.

We take into consideration the respondent’s forthright testi- — mony at the hearing, the fact that the charge arose as a result of one isolated incident, and that it does not appear that respondent has ever been the subject of any other charge. Nevertheless, the respondent did mislead his client and neglect the appeal. This breach of professional conduct cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the respondent should be censured. (Matter of Rothenberg, 15 A D 2d 30; Matter of Gough, 5 A D 2d 17.)

Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, McGtvern, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice in the . First Judicial Department on December 9, 1957. The crux of the charge of professional misconduct against respondent is that after he was paid a total of $450 (which has been repaid) towards a fee and the cost of trial minutes, he failed to purchase the minutes or take any other steps to prosecute the appeal of his client, which was dismissed. The report of the Referee finding the charge to have been sustained is supported by the evidence and is confirmed.

We take into consideration the respondent’s forthright testi- — mony at the hearing, the fact that the charge arose as a result of one isolated incident, and that it does not appear that respondent has ever been the subject of any other charge. Nevertheless, the respondent did mislead his client and neglect the appeal. This breach of professional conduct cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the respondent should be censured. (Matter of Rothenberg, 15 A D 2d 30; Matter of Gough, 5 A D 2d 17.)

Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, McGtvern, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.2d 111, 318 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-corrigan-nyappdiv-1971.