In re Subin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Subin

17 A.D.2d 158, 232 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7416

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 158 (In re Subin) 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 Subin, 17 A.D.2d 158, 232 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7416 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice April 3, 1939, in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department. On June 7, 1961, upon his plea of guilty, he was convicted in the Court of Special Sessions of making loans in violation of sections 340 and 357 of the Banking Law. He co-operated fully with the office of the District Attorney and with the petitioner. It appears that the respondent previously enjoyed a good reputation and has not heretofore been involved in any disciplinary proceedings. However, his actions in this instance clearly constitute unprofessional conduct and cannot be condoned. The respondent should be censured.

Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice April 3, 1939, in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department. On June 7, 1961, upon his plea of guilty, he was convicted in the Court of Special Sessions of making loans in violation of sections 340 and 357 of the Banking Law. He co-operated fully with the office of the District Attorney and with the petitioner. It appears that the respondent previously enjoyed a good reputation and has not heretofore been involved in any disciplinary proceedings. However, his actions in this instance clearly constitute unprofessional conduct and cannot be condoned. The respondent should be censured.

Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 158, 232 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-subin-nyappdiv-1962.