In re First

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re First

265 A.D. 710, 40 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6393

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re First. Read the opinion of the Court — 264 A.D. 105 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 9, 1943·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An official referee has reported that charges of professional misconduct against the respondent have been sustained by the petitioner. On May 8, 1942, the respondent was suspended from practice for a period of three months. (264 App. Div. 105.) At the expiration of that suspension he was not reinstated because of the present charges. The record now before the court discloses that extenuating circumstances exist. In addition, no one has sustained any loss, monetary or otherwise, as a result of the respondent’s acts. These facts warrant the conclusion that the suspension of eleven months already imposed on the respondent is sufficient punishment.

Respondent may apply for reinstatement upon proof of his compliance with the conditions incorporated in the order of May 8, 1942, and that he has since satisfactorily conducted himself.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ., concur.

So ordered. [See 266 App. Div. 768.]

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

Per Curiam.

An official referee has reported that charges of professional misconduct against the respondent have been sustained by the petitioner. On May 8, 1942, the respondent was suspended from practice for a period of three months. (264 App. Div. 105.) At the expiration of that suspension he was not reinstated because of the present charges. The record now before the court discloses that extenuating circumstances exist. In addition, no one has sustained any loss, monetary or otherwise, as a result of the respondent’s acts. These facts warrant the conclusion that the suspension of eleven months already imposed on the respondent is sufficient punishment.

Respondent may apply for reinstatement upon proof of his compliance with the conditions incorporated in the order of May 8, 1942, and that he has since satisfactorily conducted himself.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ., concur.

So ordered. [See 266 App. Div. 768.]

In re First, 265 A.D. 710, 40 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

265 A.D. 710 (In re First) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related