In re Marfeo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Marfeo

274 A.D. 21, 79 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2998

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

DecidedJune 23, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 A.D. 21 (In re Marfeo) 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 Marfeo, 274 A.D. 21, 79 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent accepted employment as attorney on a contingent fee basis, to represent a client in connection with a cause of action for negligence to recover damages for-personal injuries. The client had tripped over some steps in a private walk, which lie did not see on account of the dimout during wartime. This cause of action appears to have been unpromising from the start, but respondent started action, evidently hoping to procure a settlement. It ran along for several years without being noticed for trial. The defendant owner of the real property refused to settle. Respondent states that he told his client upon a number of occasions that he must obtain another lawyer to represent him in the said action. He did not do so. Finally a motion was noticed by the defendant to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute, which was granted. Respondent should be censured for failing to inform his client of the pendency of the said motion, in order to have enabled him to procure another lawyer, if he so desired, for the purpose of continuing to prosecute the action. That was the client’s right, even though, the action may have been groundless, and respondent ought not to have taken it upon himself to [22]*22decide on his own responsibility that the action should be ended without further struggle.

The report of the referee should be confirmed and the respondent censured as above stated.

Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent accepted employment as attorney on a contingent fee basis, to represent a client in connection with a cause of action for negligence to recover damages for-personal injuries. The client had tripped over some steps in a private walk, which lie did not see on account of the dimout during wartime. This cause of action appears to have been unpromising from the start, but respondent started action, evidently hoping to procure a settlement. It ran along for several years without being noticed for trial. The defendant owner of the real property refused to settle. Respondent states that he told his client upon a number of occasions that he must obtain another lawyer to represent him in the said action. He did not do so. Finally a motion was noticed by the defendant to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute, which was granted. Respondent should be censured for failing to inform his client of the pendency of the said motion, in order to have enabled him to procure another lawyer, if he so desired, for the purpose of continuing to prosecute the action. That was the client’s right, even though, the action may have been groundless, and respondent ought not to have taken it upon himself to [22]*22decide on his own responsibility that the action should be ended without further struggle.

The report of the referee should be confirmed and the respondent censured as above stated.

Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D. 21, 79 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marfeo-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack