In re Stevens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Stevens

249 A.D. 600, 293 N.Y.S. 524, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9661

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 600 (In re Stevens) 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 Stevens, 249 A.D. 600, 293 N.Y.S. 524, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An official referee, to whom was referred for hearing charges of professional misconduct on the part of the respondent, reports that the latter admitted all the facts alleged in the petition, pleading in extenuation that he had been ill for a long time, that business was bad, and that under the circumstances he applied to his own use the money of his clients. He appears to have been guilty not only of the deliberate conversion of the funds of his clients, but of a systematic course of deception in his dealings with them. Such conduct finds no mitigation in a plea of necessity. The respondent should be disbarred.

Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Respondent disbarred.

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

Per Curiam.

An official referee, to whom was referred for hearing charges of professional misconduct on the part of the respondent, reports that the latter admitted all the facts alleged in the petition, pleading in extenuation that he had been ill for a long time, that business was bad, and that under the circumstances he applied to his own use the money of his clients. He appears to have been guilty not only of the deliberate conversion of the funds of his clients, but of a systematic course of deception in his dealings with them. Such conduct finds no mitigation in a plea of necessity. The respondent should be disbarred.

Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Respondent disbarred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 600, 293 N.Y.S. 524, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stevens-nyappdiv-1937.