In re Sherman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Sherman

271 A.D.2d 462

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 462 (In re Sherman) 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 Sherman, 271 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was charged with professional misconduct as a result of his participation in the fraudulent sale of a bakery. The transaction was the subject of an action which resulted in a judgment against respondent and his clients. The facts are set forth in the opinion of this court. . (Bardach v. Chain Bakers, Inc., 265 App. Div. 24, affd. 290 N. Y. 813.) The official referee appointed to take testimony in regard to the charges has reported that in his opinion the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct by reason of his active participation in the fraud, his silence when he knew the buyer was being defrauded and his violation of a fiduciary relationship as escrow holder of the moneys paid by the buyer. The report of the official referee is confirmed. The respondent should be disbarred.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Dore and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was charged with professional misconduct as a result of his participation in the fraudulent sale of a bakery. The transaction was the subject of an action which resulted in a judgment against respondent and his clients. The facts are set forth in the opinion of this court. . (Bardach v. Chain Bakers, Inc., 265 App. Div. 24, affd. 290 N. Y. 813.) The official referee appointed to take testimony in regard to the charges has reported that in his opinion the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct by reason of his active participation in the fraud, his silence when he knew the buyer was being defrauded and his violation of a fiduciary relationship as escrow holder of the moneys paid by the buyer. The report of the official referee is confirmed. The respondent should be disbarred.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Dore and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sherman-nyappdiv-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack