From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Hoenig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 19, 1944
268 App. Div. 8 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)

Opinion

May 19, 1944.

Einar Chrystie for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.


An Official Referee has found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct. In view of mitigating circumstances and the additional fact that the Referee in his report stated that the respondent's improper conduct was not caused by any desire to defraud his clients, but "solely through carelessness and loose business methods", we believe a censure is sufficient punishment.

The respondent should be censured.

MARTIN, P.J., TOWNLEY, GLENNON, DORE and COHN, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.


Summaries of

Matter of Hoenig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 19, 1944
268 App. Div. 8 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)
Case details for

Matter of Hoenig

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SIDNEY B. HOENIG, an Attorney, Respondent. ASSOCIATION OF…

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

Date published: May 19, 1944

Citations

268 App. Div. 8 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)
48 N.Y.S.2d 210

Citing Cases

Petition for Disbarmt. of J.R. Poole

Ex parte McDonald, 112 Mont. 129, 113 P.2d 790; Ex parte Marshall, 165 Miss. 523, 147 So. 791; Ex parte…

Matter of O'Doherty

This court has always been quick to recognize ameliorative distinctions in proceedings affecting attorneys.…