In re Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Harris

25 A.D.2d 862, 270 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4319

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

DecidedMay 9, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 862 (In re Harris) 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 Harris, 25 A.D.2d 862, 270 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a proceeding to discipline respondent, an attorney at law, for professional misconduct. The issues of fact were referred to a Referee for hearing and report setting forth his findings on the issues. After hearing, the Referee filed his report, which petitioner now moves to confirm. Respondent was admitted to the Bar in this court in December, 1933; he has maintained an office at 1501 Broadway, New York City; and resides in Rockland County. The evidence supports the findings of the Referee that respondent (1) concealed from his client (Mrs. Rieamonte) that premises which she purchased were incumbered by a second mortgage at the time of the closing of title; (2) prepared the deed from the seller to his said client and deliberately omitted to include any recitation of the second mortgage; (3) prepared and induced this client to execute and deliver a purchase-money mortgage which respondent represented to be a second mortgage, whereas it was in fact a third mortgage; (4) received moneys from the seller to satisfy the second mortgage, but instead converted the money to his own Use; (5) induced the same client to give false testimony before the Additional Special Term of the Supreme Court, Kings County, with respect to these charges; (6) converted moneys received by him from the husband of another client (Mrs. Kaehel) to be held in escrow for her; (7) caused her to make an agreement with her husband in a pending action, without the knowledge of her attorneys of record, by reason of which the latter were defrauded of their retaining lien on the proceeds of the settlement; (8) between December, 1962 and December, 1963 issued over 150 cheeks which were returned for insufficient funds; (9) commingled escrow and clients’ funds with his own; (10) submitted false affidavits in a matrimonial action; and (11) gave false testimony before the Referee. The motion to confirm the Referee’s report is granted and his findings are confirmed; and, on the basis of such findings, respondent is disbarred and his name directed to be struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law of the State of New York, effective immediately.

Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

This is a proceeding to discipline respondent, an attorney at law, for professional misconduct. The issues of fact were referred to a Referee for hearing and report setting forth his findings on the issues. After hearing, the Referee filed his report, which petitioner now moves to confirm. Respondent was admitted to the Bar in this court in December, 1933; he has maintained an office at 1501 Broadway, New York City; and resides in Rockland County. The evidence supports the findings of the Referee that respondent (1) concealed from his client (Mrs. Rieamonte) that premises which she purchased were incumbered by a second mortgage at the time of the closing of title; (2) prepared the deed from the seller to his said client and deliberately omitted to include any recitation of the second mortgage; (3) prepared and induced this client to execute and deliver a purchase-money mortgage which respondent represented to be a second mortgage, whereas it was in fact a third mortgage; (4) received moneys from the seller to satisfy the second mortgage, but instead converted the money to his own Use; (5) induced the same client to give false testimony before the Additional Special Term of the Supreme Court, Kings County, with respect to these charges; (6) converted moneys received by him from the husband of another client (Mrs. Kaehel) to be held in escrow for her; (7) caused her to make an agreement with her husband in a pending action, without the knowledge of her attorneys of record, by reason of which the latter were defrauded of their retaining lien on the proceeds of the settlement; (8) between December, 1962 and December, 1963 issued over 150 cheeks which were returned for insufficient funds; (9) commingled escrow and clients’ funds with his own; (10) submitted false affidavits in a matrimonial action; and (11) gave false testimony before the Referee. The motion to confirm the Referee’s report is granted and his findings are confirmed; and, on the basis of such findings, respondent is disbarred and his name directed to be struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law of the State of New York, effective immediately.

Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 862, 270 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-harris-nyappdiv-1966.