In re Turkel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Turkel

252 A.D. 481, 299 N.Y.S. 816, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5691

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D. 481 (In re Turkel) 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 Turkel, 252 A.D. 481, 299 N.Y.S. 816, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The respondent having collected on behalf of a client the sum of $550 on March 2, 1929, concealed the fact of such collection and converted the money to his own use. When his [482]*482client learned of the collection on or about May 27, 1929, he demanded payment. The respondent forwarded his check for the amount, but the check was not paid when presented. Respondent subsequently paid S3ÓÓ on account. He later induced his Client to indorse his noté for 11,000 Upon the representation that out of the proceeds thereof he would pay the balance of $250 then due and that- he would also pay said note at maturity. The respondent did neither, with the result that his client was compelled to pay approximately $600 on account of said note.

The respondent should be disbarred. °

Present — Mabtin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Dobe and Cohn, JR

Respondent disbarred.

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

Per Curiam.

The respondent having collected on behalf of a client the sum of $550 on March 2, 1929, concealed the fact of such collection and converted the money to his own use. When his [482]*482client learned of the collection on or about May 27, 1929, he demanded payment. The respondent forwarded his check for the amount, but the check was not paid when presented. Respondent subsequently paid S3ÓÓ on account. He later induced his Client to indorse his noté for 11,000 Upon the representation that out of the proceeds thereof he would pay the balance of $250 then due and that- he would also pay said note at maturity. The respondent did neither, with the result that his client was compelled to pay approximately $600 on account of said note.

The respondent should be disbarred. °

Present — Mabtin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Dobe and Cohn, JR

Respondent disbarred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D. 481, 299 N.Y.S. 816, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-turkel-nyappdiv-1937.