In re Friedland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Friedland

271 A.D.2d 707

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 707 (In re Friedland) 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 Friedland, 271 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An official referee has reported that the charges of misconduct set forth in the petition have been established by the petitioner. He pointed out, however, that there were mitigating circumstances. Although the evidence fully sustains the charges, we agree with the official referee that there were mitigating circumstances which warrant the conclusion that a censure is sufficient punishment.

The respondent should be censured.

Martin, P. J., G-lennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Yoorhis, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

An official referee has reported that the charges of misconduct set forth in the petition have been established by the petitioner. He pointed out, however, that there were mitigating circumstances. Although the evidence fully sustains the charges, we agree with the official referee that there were mitigating circumstances which warrant the conclusion that a censure is sufficient punishment.

The respondent should be censured.

Martin, P. J., G-lennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Yoorhis, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-friedland-nyappdiv-1947.