In re Zigman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Zigman

256 A.D. 198, 9 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4680

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 198 (In re Zigman) 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 Zigman, 256 A.D. 198, 9 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The record establishes that the respondent for the purpose of deceiving the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and the public, with the intention of escaping personal liability, made two successive transfers of an automobile from his own name to that of fictitious persons. He thus deliberately violated essential [199]*199requirements of the Vehicle and Traffic Law with relation to licenses and operated and permitted others to operate an automobile under a license which he knew contained a fictitious name and address, in disregard, not only of the law, but of the rights of every person who uses the highways. In effecting one of said transfers the respondent signed his wife’s name and thereafter caused the acknowledgment of his wife’s purported signature to be taken by a notary public without her appearance before him.

The respondent by his conduct has shown that he lacks a proper conception of the ethics of the legal profession.

He should be suspended for three months, with leave to apply for reinstatement at the expiration of that time upon proof of his compliance with the conditions incorporated in the order.

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

Respondent suspended for three months.

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

Per Curiam.

The record establishes that the respondent for the purpose of deceiving the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and the public, with the intention of escaping personal liability, made two successive transfers of an automobile from his own name to that of fictitious persons. He thus deliberately violated essential [199]*199requirements of the Vehicle and Traffic Law with relation to licenses and operated and permitted others to operate an automobile under a license which he knew contained a fictitious name and address, in disregard, not only of the law, but of the rights of every person who uses the highways. In effecting one of said transfers the respondent signed his wife’s name and thereafter caused the acknowledgment of his wife’s purported signature to be taken by a notary public without her appearance before him.

The respondent by his conduct has shown that he lacks a proper conception of the ethics of the legal profession.

He should be suspended for three months, with leave to apply for reinstatement at the expiration of that time upon proof of his compliance with the conditions incorporated in the order.

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

Respondent suspended for three months.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 198, 9 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-zigman-nyappdiv-1939.