In re Engel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Engel

241 A.D. 100, 272 N.Y.S. 696, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8179

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 4, 1934·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

For the reasons stated and certain extenuating circumstances noted in the report of the learned referee, including the fact that respondent has refrained from practicing his profession since the filing of the charges in this proceeding, to wit, for upwards of one year, we deem a censure sufficient.

Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, Martin, O’Malley and Untermyer, JJ.

Respondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

For the reasons stated and certain extenuating circumstances noted in the report of the learned referee, including the fact that respondent has refrained from practicing his profession since the filing of the charges in this proceeding, to wit, for upwards of one year, we deem a censure sufficient.

Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, Martin, O’Malley and Untermyer, JJ.

Respondent censured.

In re Engel, 241 A.D. 100, 272 N.Y.S. 696, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

241 A.D. 100 (In re Engel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.