In re Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Taylor

32 A.D.2d 986, 301 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3529

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 986 (In re Taylor) 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 Taylor, 32 A.D.2d 986, 301 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the New York State Bar Association. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on January 19, 1939 at a .term of the Appellate Division in the Third Judicial Department. He is charged with neglect and deceit in the handling of a client’s claim in negligence, as a result of which that claim is now ¡barred by the Statute of Limitations. At the hearing before the Referee, respondent was permitted to amend his answer to admit the allegations of misconduct set forth in the .petition. It does not appear .that this isolated incident of misconduct is typical of respondent’s legal practice generally. Respondent suspended from the practice of the law for a period of three months, effective on the date to he specified in the order to be entered hereon. Settle order. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curium.

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

Per Curiam.

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the New York State Bar Association. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on January 19, 1939 at a .term of the Appellate Division in the Third Judicial Department. He is charged with neglect and deceit in the handling of a client’s claim in negligence, as a result of which that claim is now ¡barred by the Statute of Limitations. At the hearing before the Referee, respondent was permitted to amend his answer to admit the allegations of misconduct set forth in the .petition. It does not appear .that this isolated incident of misconduct is typical of respondent’s legal practice generally. Respondent suspended from the practice of the law for a period of three months, effective on the date to he specified in the order to be entered hereon. Settle order. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curium.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 986, 301 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-taylor-nyappdiv-1969.