In re Reiter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Reiter

251 A.D. 256, 296 N.Y.S. 355, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6904

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

DecidedMay 28, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D. 256 (In re Reiter) 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 Reiter, 251 A.D. 256, 296 N.Y.S. 355, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The respondent, as notary public, certified that Sam Wandruff, Frances Wandruff and Harry Wandruff had personally appeared before him and acknowledged they had executed a release, whereas the fact is that Frances Wandruff had not appeared. In so doing, the respondent relied upon the statements of Sam Wandruff and Harry Wandruff, the husband and son, respectively, of Mrs. Wandruff, that she had signed the release. Notwithstanding that statement and the fact that the respondent had no criminal intent and did not intend to deceive, his act was most serious and inherently deceptive, inconsistent with the obligation of a notary public, and inexcusable in an attorney.

The respondent should be censured.

Present ■— Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Respondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

The respondent, as notary public, certified that Sam Wandruff, Frances Wandruff and Harry Wandruff had personally appeared before him and acknowledged they had executed a release, whereas the fact is that Frances Wandruff had not appeared. In so doing, the respondent relied upon the statements of Sam Wandruff and Harry Wandruff, the husband and son, respectively, of Mrs. Wandruff, that she had signed the release. Notwithstanding that statement and the fact that the respondent had no criminal intent and did not intend to deceive, his act was most serious and inherently deceptive, inconsistent with the obligation of a notary public, and inexcusable in an attorney.

The respondent should be censured.

Present ■— Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Respondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D. 256, 296 N.Y.S. 355, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-reiter-nyappdiv-1937.