From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Crowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 1952
280 AD 300 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)

Opinion


280 A.D. 300 113 N.Y.S.2d 322 In the Matter of EDWARD J. CROWE, an Attorney, Respondent. ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of New York, First Department. June 17, 1952

         DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS instituted by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Respondent was admitted to the Bar April 4, 1923, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department.

         COUNSEL

          George G. Hunter, Jr., of counsel (Frank H. Gordon, attorney), for petitioner.

          Edward J. Crowe, respondent in person.

          Per Curiam.

          The learned Referee appointed in this disciplinary proceeding with regard to two charges against respondent, an attorney, has found on sufficient evidence that both charges should be sustained. The first charge alleges that respondent threatened an attorney who was escrowee with criminal prosecution if she released the escrow fund although in the state of facts disclosed that attorney had no alternative under the agreement but to release the funds in question. The second charge is that respondent, after being notified by registered mail of a meeting of the grievance committee to consider the first charge and inviting him to attend, telephoned the committee's attorney and used profane language in characterization of the committee. Although respondent appeared at the hearings before the Referee and conducted his own defense by way of cross-examining petitioner's witnesses, respondent did not take the stand himself and offer evidence in defense of the charges. We think the Referee properly found that the evidence supported the charges made.          The Referee found that under respondent's interpretation of the language of the agreement involved in the first charge, he actually did consider that the escrow money should not be turned over until the buyer in the sale had first accounted to the seller and gave respondent the benefit of the doubt that that was really his opinion. He also held, however, that there was no justification for the intemperate language respondent employed.

         Under all the facts and circumstances disclosed, the report of the Referee should be approved and respondent censured.

         DORE, J. P., COHN, CALLAHAN and VAN VOORHIS, JJ., concur.

         Respondent censured.

Summaries of

Matter of Crowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 1952
280 AD 300 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)
Case details for

Matter of Crowe

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of EDWARD J. CROWE, an Attorney, Respondent. ASSOCIATION OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 17, 1952

Citations

280 AD 300 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)
280 App. Div. 300
113 N.Y.S.2d 322