In re Pinckney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Pinckney

276 A.D.2d 700

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

DecidedMay 9, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 700 (In re Pinckney) 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 Pinckney, 276 A.D.2d 700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Official Referee has found that respondent, largely through carelessness, misused funds belonging to. an estate but that he has made the estate whole. He also found that respondent did not act with evil intention, that he is of general good character and that he has earned the confidence of his own people and the respect of many citizens of private and civic importance. It appears also that respondent, without any formal demand ever having been made upon him, made full restitution.

[701]*701Though respondent was technically guilty of professional misconduct, in view of the extenuating circumstances shown, he should be hereby censured.

Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

The Official Referee has found that respondent, largely through carelessness, misused funds belonging to. an estate but that he has made the estate whole. He also found that respondent did not act with evil intention, that he is of general good character and that he has earned the confidence of his own people and the respect of many citizens of private and civic importance. It appears also that respondent, without any formal demand ever having been made upon him, made full restitution.

[701]*701Though respondent was technically guilty of professional misconduct, in view of the extenuating circumstances shown, he should be hereby censured.

Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pinckney-nyappdiv-1950.