In re Krieger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Krieger

38 A.D.2d 238, 329 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5291

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 238 (In re Krieger) 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 Krieger, 38 A.D.2d 238, 329 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice in this Department on June 1, 1933. He was charged with failing to account for and remit certain funds of an estate as well as converting the assets of a client’s interest in an estate to his own use. In the course of the investigation, respondent requested and received nine adjournments of hearings on the charges. Not only did he persist in refusing to appear on any of these occasions, but he also refused to honor a subpoena duces tecum issued by this court. Formal charges filed by the New York State Bar Association in which he was charged with the misconduct hereinabove set forth, were served on respondent together with a notice of motion returnable before this court on November 30, 1971 notifying him that the charges would be acted upon at that time. Respondent failed to file an answer to the charges, did not appear on the return date, and did not submit any papers on this application. ‘ ‘ Such inaction is not only construed to constitute an admission of the charges but also an indifference to the consequences of an adverse determination ” (Matter of Nicotina, 37 A D 2d 300, 301; Matter of Schner, 5 A b 2d 599, 600).

The respondent should be disbarred.

Del Vecchio, J. P., Wither, Gabrielli, Cardamone and Henry, JJ., concur.

Order of disbarment entered.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice in this Department on June 1, 1933. He was charged with failing to account for and remit certain funds of an estate as well as converting the assets of a client’s interest in an estate to his own use. In the course of the investigation, respondent requested and received nine adjournments of hearings on the charges. Not only did he persist in refusing to appear on any of these occasions, but he also refused to honor a subpoena duces tecum issued by this court. Formal charges filed by the New York State Bar Association in which he was charged with the misconduct hereinabove set forth, were served on respondent together with a notice of motion returnable before this court on November 30, 1971 notifying him that the charges would be acted upon at that time. Respondent failed to file an answer to the charges, did not appear on the return date, and did not submit any papers on this application. ‘ ‘ Such inaction is not only construed to constitute an admission of the charges but also an indifference to the consequences of an adverse determination ” (Matter of Nicotina, 37 A D 2d 300, 301; Matter of Schner, 5 A b 2d 599, 600).

The respondent should be disbarred.

Del Vecchio, J. P., Wither, Gabrielli, Cardamone and Henry, JJ., concur.

Order of disbarment entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 238, 329 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-krieger-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack