In re Krystaniak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Krystaniak

261 A.D. 1048, 26 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8684

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 1048 (In re Krystaniak) 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 Krystaniak, 261 A.D. 1048, 26 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Referee’s report confirmed in accordance with the memorandum and order entered severely censuring respondent. Memorandum: The official referee heard testimony against the respondent on three charges. As to the first charge the official referee reports that the respondent retained and failed to turn over to his clients moneys received by him on their behalf in a real estate transaction. The evidence clearly supports this finding and it is not denied by the respondent and we sustain the same. The referee reports, however, that such moneys were repaid in full to respondent’s clients during the pendency of these proceedings. As to the second charge the official referee recommends a dismissal and we adopt that recommendation. As to the third charge having to do with respondent’s conduct in the matter of the bankruptcy of Steven J. Zywiczynski, the facts to support the charge are not clearly established by the evidence, and we, therefore, dismiss that charge. In view of mitigating circumstances and full restitution having been made the court is of the opinion that a severe censure is sufficient punishment. All concur. Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

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

Referee’s report confirmed in accordance with the memorandum and order entered severely censuring respondent. Memorandum: The official referee heard testimony against the respondent on three charges. As to the first charge the official referee reports that the respondent retained and failed to turn over to his clients moneys received by him on their behalf in a real estate transaction. The evidence clearly supports this finding and it is not denied by the respondent and we sustain the same. The referee reports, however, that such moneys were repaid in full to respondent’s clients during the pendency of these proceedings. As to the second charge the official referee recommends a dismissal and we adopt that recommendation. As to the third charge having to do with respondent’s conduct in the matter of the bankruptcy of Steven J. Zywiczynski, the facts to support the charge are not clearly established by the evidence, and we, therefore, dismiss that charge. In view of mitigating circumstances and full restitution having been made the court is of the opinion that a severe censure is sufficient punishment. All concur. Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 1048, 26 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-krystaniak-nyappdiv-1941.