In re Hyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Hyman

38 A.D.2d 511, 331 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4761

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 27, 1972·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice in 1951 by the Appellate Division, First Department, was charged with specifications of professional misconduct in his neglect of the interests of clients and misrepresentations in connection therewith. The Referee to whom the matter was referred found Charges I, II and III were established. Charge IV was not sustained. The Referee’s report is in all respects confirmed. The petitioner concedes that the Referee was correct in not sustaining Charge IV.

The charges, as sustained, establish that respondent was guilty of neglect in connection with three cases of different types. The misconduct of respondent was aggravated by his actions and misrepresentations in an effort to cover up his delinquencies, including false assurances to clients as to the status of their cases.

Such negligence and false representations evidence serious professional misconduct. In the light of his admissions of wrongdoing and circumstances indicating no venal motivation, respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for [512] a period of 18 months. (Matter of McLaughlin, 31 A D 2d 58.)

McGivern, J. P., McNally, Tilzer, Eager and Capozzoli, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for a period of 18 months effective May 30, 1972.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice in 1951 by the Appellate Division, First Department, was charged with specifications of professional misconduct in his neglect of the interests of clients and misrepresentations in connection therewith. The Referee to whom the matter was referred found Charges I, II and III were established. Charge IV was not sustained. The Referee’s report is in all respects confirmed. The petitioner concedes that the Referee was correct in not sustaining Charge IV.

The charges, as sustained, establish that respondent was guilty of neglect in connection with three cases of different types. The misconduct of respondent was aggravated by his actions and misrepresentations in an effort to cover up his delinquencies, including false assurances to clients as to the status of their cases.

Such negligence and false representations evidence serious professional misconduct. In the light of his admissions of wrongdoing and circumstances indicating no venal motivation, respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for [512] a period of 18 months. (Matter of McLaughlin, 31 A D 2d 58.)

McGivern, J. P., McNally, Tilzer, Eager and Capozzoli, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for a period of 18 months effective May 30, 1972.

In re Hyman, 38 A.D.2d 511, 331 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

38 A.D.2d 511 (In re Hyman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related