In re Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Smith

2 A.D.2d 382, 156 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3984

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 382 (In re Smith) 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 Smith, 2 A.D.2d 382, 156 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent has admitted the use for his own purposes of his client’s funds which were received by him while handling the sale of the client’s real property. The fact that at the time he expected a substantial fee in another matter which would enable him to replace the funds prior to the closing of title does not excuse him. Nor is he absolved by the fact that he paid in full all sums due the client at the time title was closed. We are satisfied, however, that respondent had no real intent to convert the client’s funds. It was at a time of financial stress that respondent used the funds, unwisely placing too much reliance on the expectation of shortly receiving a fee.

His conduct is not to be condoned, but in view of all the circumstances and considering his exceptional record, particularly while connected with the armed services, we are inclined to leniency.

Respondent should be suspended for the period of six months.

Breitel, J. P., Botein, Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of six months.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent has admitted the use for his own purposes of his client’s funds which were received by him while handling the sale of the client’s real property. The fact that at the time he expected a substantial fee in another matter which would enable him to replace the funds prior to the closing of title does not excuse him. Nor is he absolved by the fact that he paid in full all sums due the client at the time title was closed. We are satisfied, however, that respondent had no real intent to convert the client’s funds. It was at a time of financial stress that respondent used the funds, unwisely placing too much reliance on the expectation of shortly receiving a fee.

His conduct is not to be condoned, but in view of all the circumstances and considering his exceptional record, particularly while connected with the armed services, we are inclined to leniency.

Respondent should be suspended for the period of six months.

Breitel, J. P., Botein, Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of six months.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 382, 156 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-smith-nyappdiv-1956.