Greenfield, In re

• Decision Date: 19 July 1965
• Citation: 262 N.Y.S.2d 349,24 A.D.2d 651
• Parties: In the Matter of Louis G. GREENFIELD and Sidney W. Rothstein, Attorneys at Law. Solomon A. KLEIN, Petitioner, v. Louis G. GREENFIELD and Sidney W. Rothstein, Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 349

262 N.Y.S.2d 349

24 A.D.2d 651

In the Matter of Louis G. GREENFIELD and Sidney W.

Rothstein, Attorneys at Law.

Solomon A. KLEIN, Petitioner, v. Louis G. GREENFIELD and Sidney W. Rothstein, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 19, 1965.

Before UGHETTA, Acting P. J., and BRENNAN, HILL, RABIN and BENJAMIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

This is a proceeding to discipline respondents, attorneys, for professional misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice upon the following charges: (1) that, following the denial by a Justice of the Supreme Court of a motion made by respondents in a pending action, the respondent Greenfield, acting in concert with respondent Rothstein, wrote and addressed a letter to the said Justice, wherein respondent Greenfield falsely, recklessly, and without any basis in fact, accused the Justice of misconduct in office and further set forth utterly false, defamatory and scandalous charges against him; (2) that thereafter respondent Greenfield, acting in concert with respondent Rothstein, wrote and addressed another letter to the said Justice accusing him of official misconduct (3) that respondent Greenfield prepared and submitted letters and affidavits containing allegations of misconduct on the part of the Justice and a county clerk and circulated the same to the Governor of this State, the District Attorney, the Judicial Conference, and the Presiding Justice of this court, and that such allegations were utterly false, defamatory and scandalous and without basis in fact; (4) that in an action pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, the respondent Rothstein prepared, executed and submitted an affidavit in support of a motion which set forth alleged statements of fact that were known to him to be false and untrue and were intended to deceive the court; (5) that respondent Rothstein testified under oath before the Judicial Inquiry on Professional Conduct in the Borough of Brooklyn, wherein he gave false testimony with knowledge of its falsity; and (6) that respondent Rothstein converted to his own use a part of the proceeds of a check drawn for the benefit of the law firm of which he was a member.

Petitioner further alleges that respondent Greenfield wrote and addressed another letter to the said Justice wherein the said respondent recanted his charges of official misconduct on the part of such Justice and admitted that the said charges were utterly false and without foundation in fact, and apologized for his prior conduct.

In answer to the order to show cause and petition instituting this proceeding, the respondent Greenfield submitted a voluminous verified answering affidavit in which he admitted each of the charges against him (except that he denied acting in concert with the respondent Rothstein), and in which he set forth, by way of explanation and mitigation of the charges, the alleged circumstances which prompted his actions and apologized profusely for the wrong he had done to the Justice. The substance of his explanation was that he acted in good faith on the basis of false information given to him by respondent Rothstein and another associate which he accepted without making any investigation thereof.

Assuming, without deciding, that respondent Greenfield's explanations are truthful and his apology sincere, his conduct must, nevertheless, be severely condemned. As stated in a somewhat similar case (Matter of Bevans, 225...