In re Stern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Stern

250 A.D. 501, 294 N.Y.S. 749, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8385

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

DecidedApril 9, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D. 501 (In re Stern) 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 Stern, 250 A.D. 501, 294 N.Y.S. 749, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The charges against the respondent are highly technical. The evidence discloses that the case of his client was dismissed because of negligence in the attorney’s office. The respondent recognized his responsibility for the unfortunate situation and sought to compensate his client for any loss sustained. Although he did not then inform his client of the dismissal of the action he furnished the means of ascertaining such fact. His client having elected to proceed to trial, the respondent procured the default to be opened and the case restored to the calendar. The action was thereafter settled for less than the respondent had offered to pay his client. The rights of the client were in no way prejudiced by the actions of the respondent.

The charges should be dismissed.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Proceeding dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The charges against the respondent are highly technical. The evidence discloses that the case of his client was dismissed because of negligence in the attorney’s office. The respondent recognized his responsibility for the unfortunate situation and sought to compensate his client for any loss sustained. Although he did not then inform his client of the dismissal of the action he furnished the means of ascertaining such fact. His client having elected to proceed to trial, the respondent procured the default to be opened and the case restored to the calendar. The action was thereafter settled for less than the respondent had offered to pay his client. The rights of the client were in no way prejudiced by the actions of the respondent.

The charges should be dismissed.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Proceeding dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 501, 294 N.Y.S. 749, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stern-nyappdiv-1937.