In re Curran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Curran

31 A.D.2d 578, 294 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2901

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 578 (In re Curran) 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 Curran, 31 A.D.2d 578, 294 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Ulster County Bar Association. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on December 3, 1956 at a term of the Appellate Division in the First Judicial Department. The Referee has found respondent guilty of professional misconduct in the solicitation of a negligence claim from a family acquaintance whose husband had been seriously injured in an accident on the previous evening. There is ample evidence in the record to support this determination, and the Referee’s report is hereby confirmed. In view of certain mitigating factors, however, including respondent’s youth and inexperience at the time when the misconduct occurred, we deem censure to be sufficient punishment. Respondent censured. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

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

Per Curiam.

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Ulster County Bar Association. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on December 3, 1956 at a term of the Appellate Division in the First Judicial Department. The Referee has found respondent guilty of professional misconduct in the solicitation of a negligence claim from a family acquaintance whose husband had been seriously injured in an accident on the previous evening. There is ample evidence in the record to support this determination, and the Referee’s report is hereby confirmed. In view of certain mitigating factors, however, including respondent’s youth and inexperience at the time when the misconduct occurred, we deem censure to be sufficient punishment. Respondent censured. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 578, 294 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-curran-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack