In re Greenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Greenberg

19 A.D.2d 375, 243 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3014

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 375 (In re Greenberg) 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 Greenberg, 19 A.D.2d 375, 243 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3014 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice in 1943. He is charged with submitting false statements to insurance carriers in personal injury cases as to the employment, loss of earnings and injuries of his clients. These charges were, as the Referee found, amply sustained, and no mitigating circumstances were established. The offense is a serious one and goes to the heart of respondent’s fitness to continue in the profession. We see no other possible conclusion than that respondent should be disbarred (Matter of Wysell, 10 A D 2d 199; Matter of Shields, 16 A D 2d 50; Matter of Lemkin, 17 A D 2d 550).

The motion and cross motion insofar as they seek confirmation of the Referee’s report are granted, and in all other respects denied. The respondent should be disbarred.

Breitel, J, P., Rabin, McNally, 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 1943. He is charged with submitting false statements to insurance carriers in personal injury cases as to the employment, loss of earnings and injuries of his clients. These charges were, as the Referee found, amply sustained, and no mitigating circumstances were established. The offense is a serious one and goes to the heart of respondent’s fitness to continue in the profession. We see no other possible conclusion than that respondent should be disbarred (Matter of Wysell, 10 A D 2d 199; Matter of Shields, 16 A D 2d 50; Matter of Lemkin, 17 A D 2d 550).

The motion and cross motion insofar as they seek confirmation of the Referee’s report are granted, and in all other respects denied. The respondent should be disbarred.

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

Respondent disbarred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 375, 243 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-greenberg-nyappdiv-1963.