In re Hoffmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Hoffmann

13 A.D.2d 1003, 218 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10114

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

DecidedJune 19, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 1003 (In re Hoffmann) 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 Hoffmann, 13 A.D.2d 1003, 218 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding under the statute (Judiciary Law, § 90), to discipline an attorney for professional [1004]*1004misconduct, the issues upon the charges made by this court were referred to a Justice of the Supreme Court for hearing and report together with his recommendation. The Justice has filed his report in which he finds respondent guilty of the charges and recommends that he be suspended from practice. Motion is now made to confirm the report. The motion is granted except with respect to the degree of discipline recommended. Under all the circumstances, we conclude that a suspension of six months is warranted. Accordingly, the respondent is suspended from practice for a period of six months. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding under the statute (Judiciary Law, § 90), to discipline an attorney for professional [1004]*1004misconduct, the issues upon the charges made by this court were referred to a Justice of the Supreme Court for hearing and report together with his recommendation. The Justice has filed his report in which he finds respondent guilty of the charges and recommends that he be suspended from practice. Motion is now made to confirm the report. The motion is granted except with respect to the degree of discipline recommended. Under all the circumstances, we conclude that a suspension of six months is warranted. Accordingly, the respondent is suspended from practice for a period of six months. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 1003, 218 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hoffmann-nyappdiv-1961.