In re Sylvan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Sylvan

104 A.D.2d 24, 481 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20202

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 24 (In re Sylvan) 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 Sylvan, 104 A.D.2d 24, 481 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law before the First Judicial Department on November 28, 1949 and, at all relevant times, he has maintained an office in Manhattan. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee moves to confirm findings of fact and conclusions of law, without recommendation as to the appropriate sanction to be imposed. At the hearing, respondent admitted all of the factual allegations contained in the statement of charges and presented evidence in mitigation.

In essence, respondent’s misconduct was his failure to segregate into a separate and distinct bank account a real estate deposit of $4,500 entrusted to him. This error was compounded by his own sloppy bookkeeping, with the result that his personal check, sent in return of the escrow, was dishonored. While the [25]*25record shows that respondent’s account actually contained more than sufficient funds at the time he sent the check, that check was not presented until almost a month and a half later; when respondent was notified of the dishonoring of the check, he promptly — within four days — made good on it. Nonetheless, he was in violation of DR 1-102 (A) (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

We are persuaded by this evidence that respondent did not possess an intent to deceive or deprive. Additionally, we note, in mitigation, respondent’s unblemished 34-year career. Accordingly, public censure is sufficient.

Respondent is hereby censured for his conduct in this matter.

Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Milonas, JJ., concur.

Respondent is censured.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law before the First Judicial Department on November 28, 1949 and, at all relevant times, he has maintained an office in Manhattan. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee moves to confirm findings of fact and conclusions of law, without recommendation as to the appropriate sanction to be imposed. At the hearing, respondent admitted all of the factual allegations contained in the statement of charges and presented evidence in mitigation.

In essence, respondent’s misconduct was his failure to segregate into a separate and distinct bank account a real estate deposit of $4,500 entrusted to him. This error was compounded by his own sloppy bookkeeping, with the result that his personal check, sent in return of the escrow, was dishonored. While the [25]*25record shows that respondent’s account actually contained more than sufficient funds at the time he sent the check, that check was not presented until almost a month and a half later; when respondent was notified of the dishonoring of the check, he promptly — within four days — made good on it. Nonetheless, he was in violation of DR 1-102 (A) (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

We are persuaded by this evidence that respondent did not possess an intent to deceive or deprive. Additionally, we note, in mitigation, respondent’s unblemished 34-year career. Accordingly, public censure is sufficient.

Respondent is hereby censured for his conduct in this matter.

Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Milonas, JJ., concur.

Respondent is censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 24, 481 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sylvan-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack