In re Schner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Schner

278 A.D. 138, 103 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3759

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 10, 1951·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The respondent is charged with professional misconduct in converting to his own use the sum of $129 received for the specific purpose of paying for a title policy. It appears that the policy was paid for and delivered to respondent’s client prior to complaint to the Bar Association. It appears also that during the period covered by the complaint the respondent was suffering from ill health with infrequent attendance at his office. The Official Referee who heard the testimony has reported: “ From the evidence before me there is no doubt that while his failure to pay the bill and deliver the policy caused his client to be annoyed, he suffered no financial loss. Though the charge has been sustained it is my opinion that the predicament of this respondent, admitted to practice in 1943, is due more to negligence and carelessness than an intention to convert his client’s money to his own use.”

In the circumstances respondent should be censured.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Van Yoorhis, Shientag and Heffernan, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

The respondent is charged with professional misconduct in converting to his own use the sum of $129 received for the specific purpose of paying for a title policy. It appears that the policy was paid for and delivered to respondent’s client prior to complaint to the Bar Association. It appears also that during the period covered by the complaint the respondent was suffering from ill health with infrequent attendance at his office. The Official Referee who heard the testimony has reported: “ From the evidence before me there is no doubt that while his failure to pay the bill and deliver the policy caused his client to be annoyed, he suffered no financial loss. Though the charge has been sustained it is my opinion that the predicament of this respondent, admitted to practice in 1943, is due more to negligence and carelessness than an intention to convert his client’s money to his own use.”

In the circumstances respondent should be censured.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Van Yoorhis, Shientag and Heffernan, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

In re Schner, 278 A.D. 138, 103 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

278 A.D. 138 (In re Schner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related