In re Frankel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Frankel

264 A.D. 299, 35 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4135

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 1942·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On March 13, 1942, the respondent was duly convicted in the Court of General Sessions of the County of New York of the crime of abortion. Said crime is a felony. Pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 88 and section 477 of the Judiciary Law, therefore, she should be disbarred.

! The provisions of the statute above cited are mandatory and upon proof of conviction the order of disbarment follows as matter ;of course, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal from the judgment of conviction. (Matter of Lindheim, 195 App. Div. 827.)

! Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.

Respondent disbarred.

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

Per Curiam.

On March 13, 1942, the respondent was duly convicted in the Court of General Sessions of the County of New York of the crime of abortion. Said crime is a felony. Pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 88 and section 477 of the Judiciary Law, therefore, she should be disbarred.

! The provisions of the statute above cited are mandatory and upon proof of conviction the order of disbarment follows as matter ;of course, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal from the judgment of conviction. (Matter of Lindheim, 195 App. Div. 827.)

! Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.

Respondent disbarred.

In re Frankel, 264 A.D. 299, 35 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

264 A.D. 299 (In re Frankel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related