In re Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Martin

30 A.D.2d 361, 292 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3361

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

DecidedJuly 18, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 361 (In re Martin) 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 Martin, 30 A.D.2d 361, 292 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the First Judicial Department in 1950. A Referee has found that the charge of professional misconduct, lodged against the respondent, has been sustained. In that charge it is alleged that respondent was guilty of neglect of a client’s matter. It is alleged that on or about November 22, 1965, respondent filed a notice of appearance on behalf of a defendant in a criminal matter. After filing the notice of appearance, and between November 22, 1965 and February 17, 1966, it is charged that respondent failed to appear in court approximately 10 times; that during that time the client was incarcerated, and that Mr. Justice Peter Quinn ordered, in respondent’s absence, that he be discharged from the case.

[362]*362The evidence supported the Referee’s finding that the charge of neglect should be sustained, and the report of the Referee is confirmed. The neglect of the client’s matter, the client being in jail at the time, constitutes inexcusable misconduct. The respondent should be suspended for a period of three months.

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

Respondent suspended for a period of three months effective August 19, 1968.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the First Judicial Department in 1950. A Referee has found that the charge of professional misconduct, lodged against the respondent, has been sustained. In that charge it is alleged that respondent was guilty of neglect of a client’s matter. It is alleged that on or about November 22, 1965, respondent filed a notice of appearance on behalf of a defendant in a criminal matter. After filing the notice of appearance, and between November 22, 1965 and February 17, 1966, it is charged that respondent failed to appear in court approximately 10 times; that during that time the client was incarcerated, and that Mr. Justice Peter Quinn ordered, in respondent’s absence, that he be discharged from the case.

[362]*362The evidence supported the Referee’s finding that the charge of neglect should be sustained, and the report of the Referee is confirmed. The neglect of the client’s matter, the client being in jail at the time, constitutes inexcusable misconduct. The respondent should be suspended for a period of three months.

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

Respondent suspended for a period of three months effective August 19, 1968.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 361, 292 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-martin-nyappdiv-1968.