In re Shelton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shelton

7 A.D.2d 135, 181 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10431

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 135 (In re Shelton) 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 Shelton, 7 A.D.2d 135, 181 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The respondent violated his duties as an attorney by failing to institute an action upon a personal injury claim entrusted to him by a client, as a result of which the Statute of Limitations barred suit. He is also guilty of professional neglect in failing to respond with reasonable dispatch to turn-over requests. However, respondent had previously turned the file over to another attorney for the purpose of trying to effectuate a settlement, and' there is support in the record for his statement that thereafter he “ just forgot about the case ”— particularly since the client’s claim does not appear to have possessed much merit. The Referee characterizes his actions as “ stupidly neglectful ”. We have taken into consideration the attorney’s previous good record and the fact that the Referee has found that no false representation to his client was made at any time. We cannot, hoivever, permit such unprofessional conduct to go unnoticed and accordingly, we censure the respondent.

Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

The respondent violated his duties as an attorney by failing to institute an action upon a personal injury claim entrusted to him by a client, as a result of which the Statute of Limitations barred suit. He is also guilty of professional neglect in failing to respond with reasonable dispatch to turn-over requests. However, respondent had previously turned the file over to another attorney for the purpose of trying to effectuate a settlement, and' there is support in the record for his statement that thereafter he “ just forgot about the case ”— particularly since the client’s claim does not appear to have possessed much merit. The Referee characterizes his actions as “ stupidly neglectful ”. We have taken into consideration the attorney’s previous good record and the fact that the Referee has found that no false representation to his client was made at any time. We cannot, hoivever, permit such unprofessional conduct to go unnoticed and accordingly, we censure the respondent.

Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 135, 181 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shelton-nyappdiv-1959.