In re Engelhardt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Engelhardt

20 A.D.2d 191, 245 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4558

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 191 (In re Engelhardt) 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 Engelhardt, 20 A.D.2d 191, 245 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice in the Second Department in December, 1957. In 1960 he settled four claims for personal injuries allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. As a result of such settlements he and his clients were indicted for conspiracy to prosecute fraudulent claims and for grand larceny in the first degree. Respondent pleaded guilty to petit larceny to cover the entire indictment, made restitution, and received a suspended sentence.

The first charge made against respondent is based upon that conviction. The respondent having admitted this charge, the Referee found that it had been sustained. We concur in that finding.

The second and third charges concerned alleged ‘ ‘ solicitation ’ ’ by the respondent through intermediaries such as tow-truck operators, and respondent’s alleged falsification of a statement of retainer with respect to the name of the person referring the clients involved. Despite respondent’s denials the Referee sustained these charges. They were amply supported by the evidence and we confirm the Referee’s findings with respect thereto.

[192]*192The last two charges, which related to false medical statements and false hills of particulars, were found by the Referee not to have been sustained and we agree. They are- accordingly dismissed.

The charges presented, and of which respondent has been found guilty, are of a most serious nature. Particularly so is the one with respect to the prosecution of the fraudulent claims. Assuming, as he contends, that he did not know of the fraudulent nature of the claims until after he had been retained, it is clear that he did learn of the fraud prior to the settlement but nonetheless accepted the payment of moneys thereunder. Such conduct is inexcusable. Respondent’s entire course of conduct, as demonstrated, indicates his unfitness to continue the practice of law and he should be disbarred.

Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice in the Second Department in December, 1957. In 1960 he settled four claims for personal injuries allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. As a result of such settlements he and his clients were indicted for conspiracy to prosecute fraudulent claims and for grand larceny in the first degree. Respondent pleaded guilty to petit larceny to cover the entire indictment, made restitution, and received a suspended sentence.

The first charge made against respondent is based upon that conviction. The respondent having admitted this charge, the Referee found that it had been sustained. We concur in that finding.

The second and third charges concerned alleged ‘ ‘ solicitation ’ ’ by the respondent through intermediaries such as tow-truck operators, and respondent’s alleged falsification of a statement of retainer with respect to the name of the person referring the clients involved. Despite respondent’s denials the Referee sustained these charges. They were amply supported by the evidence and we confirm the Referee’s findings with respect thereto.

[192]*192The last two charges, which related to false medical statements and false hills of particulars, were found by the Referee not to have been sustained and we agree. They are- accordingly dismissed.

The charges presented, and of which respondent has been found guilty, are of a most serious nature. Particularly so is the one with respect to the prosecution of the fraudulent claims. Assuming, as he contends, that he did not know of the fraudulent nature of the claims until after he had been retained, it is clear that he did learn of the fraud prior to the settlement but nonetheless accepted the payment of moneys thereunder. Such conduct is inexcusable. Respondent’s entire course of conduct, as demonstrated, indicates his unfitness to continue the practice of law and he should be disbarred.

Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 191, 245 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-engelhardt-nyappdiv-1964.