In re Raines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Raines

38 A.D.2d 459, 330 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4864

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

DecidedApril 18, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 459 (In re Raines) 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 Raines, 38 A.D.2d 459, 330 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the First Department in 1946. He is charged with the conversion of funds entrusted to him as escrowee. The Referee has found that the charge has been sustained.

We agree with the learned Referee that there was a conversion in that during the life of the escrow agreement respondent drew against his special account in which the escrow funds were deposited to the extent that the balance in that account was less than the amount of the escrow, and that when payment was called for the account was overdrawn. However, we find that the credible evidence allows the conclusion that the respondent was both willing and able to restore this fund and carry out the escrow on the due date if the payee of the fund was willing to accept this solution.

We cannot, however, condone respondent’s handling of the funds entrusted to him, and the fact that this may be due to mismanagement rather than misconduct is not completely exculpatory. It has often been said that the object of disciplinary proceedings is protection of the public and conduct, even though not vicious, which endangers the public must result in the applicable sanction.

[460]*460The respondent should he censured.

McGivern, J. P., Nunez, McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

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 Department in 1946. He is charged with the conversion of funds entrusted to him as escrowee. The Referee has found that the charge has been sustained.

We agree with the learned Referee that there was a conversion in that during the life of the escrow agreement respondent drew against his special account in which the escrow funds were deposited to the extent that the balance in that account was less than the amount of the escrow, and that when payment was called for the account was overdrawn. However, we find that the credible evidence allows the conclusion that the respondent was both willing and able to restore this fund and carry out the escrow on the due date if the payee of the fund was willing to accept this solution.

We cannot, however, condone respondent’s handling of the funds entrusted to him, and the fact that this may be due to mismanagement rather than misconduct is not completely exculpatory. It has often been said that the object of disciplinary proceedings is protection of the public and conduct, even though not vicious, which endangers the public must result in the applicable sanction.

[460]*460The respondent should he censured.

McGivern, J. P., Nunez, McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 459, 330 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-raines-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack