In re Fries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Fries

38 A.D.2d 404, 330 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5049

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 404 (In re Fries) 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 Fries, 38 A.D.2d 404, 330 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the First Judicial Department in November, 1936. A Referee has found that two charges of professional misconduct lodged against respondent have been sustained. The evidence as to the first charge demonstrated that respondent neglected to prosecute a personal injury action. In the second charge, it was alleged that respondent failed to respond to inquiries from the Committee on Grievances. The report of the Referee is confirmed. The respondent has been admitted to practice for over 35 years, and this appears to be the only charge ever brought against him. Nevertheless, respondent’s inexcusable neglect of his client’s cause constitutes misconduct which cannot be condoned. We do not find it necessary to consider the charge of failure to co-operate.

Respondent should be suspended for a period of one year.

The court expresses its appreciation to Richard A. Nachman, Esq. for his services as assigned counsel for respondent.

Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for one year effective May 1, 1972.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the First Judicial Department in November, 1936. A Referee has found that two charges of professional misconduct lodged against respondent have been sustained. The evidence as to the first charge demonstrated that respondent neglected to prosecute a personal injury action. In the second charge, it was alleged that respondent failed to respond to inquiries from the Committee on Grievances. The report of the Referee is confirmed. The respondent has been admitted to practice for over 35 years, and this appears to be the only charge ever brought against him. Nevertheless, respondent’s inexcusable neglect of his client’s cause constitutes misconduct which cannot be condoned. We do not find it necessary to consider the charge of failure to co-operate.

Respondent should be suspended for a period of one year.

The court expresses its appreciation to Richard A. Nachman, Esq. for his services as assigned counsel for respondent.

Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for one year effective May 1, 1972.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 404, 330 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fries-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack