In re Rosenman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rosenman

22 A.D.2d 549, 257 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4645

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 A.D.2d 549 (In re Rosenman) 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 Rosenman, 22 A.D.2d 549, 257 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to the Bar in the Second Department in March, 1931, was charged with having violated the terms of an escrow agreement by releasing the funds to his client without authority. Respondent admitted the failure to turn over the funds to their rightful owner when called upon to do so. The Referee, who heard the evidence, found that respondent intended no fraud or deceit, but was actuated by the thought that he was facilitating a deal for a charitable organization, which had contracted to purchase certain real property; and that he could rely on the trustworthiness of his client of long standing. Full restitution was made before the hearing was commenced before the Referee.

It appears that in 1947, respondent was admonished by the Grievance Committee in regard to an improper release of escrow funds of $350.

The misconduct charged has been admitted.

Respondent has unquestionably suffered intensely as a consequence of his impermissible and improper release of the escrow money to his client. However, considering all of the circumstances, including the repayment of the full amount of $5,000, respondent’s frankness, his obvious realization and regret for his misconduct, the state of his health, and other mitigating factors, it is our judgment that a censure would be sufficient punishment.

Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Yalente and Eager, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to the Bar in the Second Department in March, 1931, was charged with having violated the terms of an escrow agreement by releasing the funds to his client without authority. Respondent admitted the failure to turn over the funds to their rightful owner when called upon to do so. The Referee, who heard the evidence, found that respondent intended no fraud or deceit, but was actuated by the thought that he was facilitating a deal for a charitable organization, which had contracted to purchase certain real property; and that he could rely on the trustworthiness of his client of long standing. Full restitution was made before the hearing was commenced before the Referee.

It appears that in 1947, respondent was admonished by the Grievance Committee in regard to an improper release of escrow funds of $350.

The misconduct charged has been admitted.

Respondent has unquestionably suffered intensely as a consequence of his impermissible and improper release of the escrow money to his client. However, considering all of the circumstances, including the repayment of the full amount of $5,000, respondent’s frankness, his obvious realization and regret for his misconduct, the state of his health, and other mitigating factors, it is our judgment that a censure would be sufficient punishment.

Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Yalente and Eager, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 549, 257 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosenman-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack