In re Holley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Holley

271 A.D.2d 225

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

DecidedJune 28, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 225 (In re Holley) 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 Holley, 271 A.D.2d 225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent admitted the charge that he neglected the interests of his client. The official referee has found that the respondent has “ presented a complete and satisfactory explanation in mitigation of his conduct.” The facts sustain the conclusion of the referee.

In view of the mitigating circumstances presented, the justices of this court are of the opinion that a censure of the respondent is sufficient punishment. The respondent, therefore, should be censured.

Martin, P. J., Townley, G-len'non, Dore and Cohn, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent admitted the charge that he neglected the interests of his client. The official referee has found that the respondent has “ presented a complete and satisfactory explanation in mitigation of his conduct.” The facts sustain the conclusion of the referee.

In view of the mitigating circumstances presented, the justices of this court are of the opinion that a censure of the respondent is sufficient punishment. The respondent, therefore, should be censured.

Martin, P. J., Townley, G-len'non, Dore and Cohn, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-holley-nyappdiv-1946.