In re Jay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jay

256 A.D. 196, 9 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4678

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 196 (In re Jay) 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 Jay, 256 A.D. 196, 9 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On or about February 25, 1937, the respondent collected a fee of $225 in a matter in which he was associated with another attorney who was entitled to a portion of the fee. He did not notify the attorney of said collection, but after the latter learned of it, agreed with him that he should receive $100 of the fee. Thereafter, in response to repeated requests that the matter be adjusted, the respondent paid $50 to the attorney. He failed to pay the balance until after the matter was brought before the Bar Association. Apparently he had hoped to reach an adjustment in connection with another matter in which he was doing some work for the attorney. The respondent admitted his misconduct in the premises but pleaded that it was due to his financial distress.

For his conduct in the premises the respondent should be severely censured.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Respondent severely censured.

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

Per Curiam.

On or about February 25, 1937, the respondent collected a fee of $225 in a matter in which he was associated with another attorney who was entitled to a portion of the fee. He did not notify the attorney of said collection, but after the latter learned of it, agreed with him that he should receive $100 of the fee. Thereafter, in response to repeated requests that the matter be adjusted, the respondent paid $50 to the attorney. He failed to pay the balance until after the matter was brought before the Bar Association. Apparently he had hoped to reach an adjustment in connection with another matter in which he was doing some work for the attorney. The respondent admitted his misconduct in the premises but pleaded that it was due to his financial distress.

For his conduct in the premises the respondent should be severely censured.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Respondent severely censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 196, 9 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jay-nyappdiv-1939.