In re Nachamie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Nachamie

48 A.D.2d 325, 369 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9890

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

DecidedJune 17, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 325 (In re Nachamie) 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 Nachamie, 48 A.D.2d 325, 369 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent attorney permitted the Statute of Limitations to run on a client’s accident case. He had committed the case to the care of another attorney while he left the practice of law temporarily to engage in a business enterprise that failed. When the other attorney died, respondent recovered his files from the widow, but not that of this client, and it was completely overlooked by respondent. This file was apparently never recovered and the widow testified that she had no recollection of ever having seen it. In the circumstances, the Referee found that respondent had been professionally negligent, never having shed his responsibility under his retainer, and held him to account for the oversight.

When the client complained to petitioner about respondent’s neglect, instead of co-operating with petitioner and responding to the accusation, respondent used dilatory tactics, sought out the client, and, in an apparent arm’s length transaction, settled his erstwhile client’s claim to the latter’s satisfaction. Respondent’s evasive and dilatory tactics were rather more a display of bad judgment than venality. Leniency has been recommended by the Referee, and considering respondent’s otherwise spotless record in over 20 years at the Bar, we agree. In the circumstances, censure should suffice as a sanction.

Respondent should be censured.

Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Lane and Nunez, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent attorney permitted the Statute of Limitations to run on a client’s accident case. He had committed the case to the care of another attorney while he left the practice of law temporarily to engage in a business enterprise that failed. When the other attorney died, respondent recovered his files from the widow, but not that of this client, and it was completely overlooked by respondent. This file was apparently never recovered and the widow testified that she had no recollection of ever having seen it. In the circumstances, the Referee found that respondent had been professionally negligent, never having shed his responsibility under his retainer, and held him to account for the oversight.

When the client complained to petitioner about respondent’s neglect, instead of co-operating with petitioner and responding to the accusation, respondent used dilatory tactics, sought out the client, and, in an apparent arm’s length transaction, settled his erstwhile client’s claim to the latter’s satisfaction. Respondent’s evasive and dilatory tactics were rather more a display of bad judgment than venality. Leniency has been recommended by the Referee, and considering respondent’s otherwise spotless record in over 20 years at the Bar, we agree. In the circumstances, censure should suffice as a sanction.

Respondent should be censured.

Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Lane and Nunez, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 325, 369 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nachamie-nyappdiv-1975.