In re Spar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Spar

56 A.D.2d 336, 392 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10437

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 336 (In re Spar) 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 Spar, 56 A.D.2d 336, 392 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10437 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to the Bar in the Second Judicial Department in May, 1935, is charged with failing and neglecting to prosecute a probate proceeding after having filed a petition for probate of a will in which he was named executor, failing and neglecting to institute an action for divorce for which he was retained, converting an $8,000 trust fund to his own use and converting a $1,000 escrow fund to his own use. Respondent has admitted all of these charges and, accordingly, the Referee’s report is confirmed.

Respondent is guilty of serious professional misconduct. A proper regard for the protection of the public would indicate that he should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years and until further order of this court. (Matter of Rosenbluth, 35 AD2d 46.) This disposition has been arrived at on the assumption that respondent will complete Ms payments so as to effect complete restitution.

Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Capozzoli, Nunez and Markewich, JJ., concur.

[337]*337Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for a period of three years, effective April 18, 1977.

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 Judicial Department in May, 1935, is charged with failing and neglecting to prosecute a probate proceeding after having filed a petition for probate of a will in which he was named executor, failing and neglecting to institute an action for divorce for which he was retained, converting an $8,000 trust fund to his own use and converting a $1,000 escrow fund to his own use. Respondent has admitted all of these charges and, accordingly, the Referee’s report is confirmed.

Respondent is guilty of serious professional misconduct. A proper regard for the protection of the public would indicate that he should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years and until further order of this court. (Matter of Rosenbluth, 35 AD2d 46.) This disposition has been arrived at on the assumption that respondent will complete Ms payments so as to effect complete restitution.

Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Capozzoli, Nunez and Markewich, JJ., concur.

[337]*337Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for a period of three years, effective April 18, 1977.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 336, 392 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-spar-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack