In re Levy

Decision Date06 January 1931
Citation255 N.Y. 223,174 N.E. 461
PartiesIn re LEVY. In re BECKER.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, New York County Lawyers' Association, and the Bronx County Bar Association, against Aaron M. Becker and Joseph Levy, attorneys. From orders of the Appellate Division (229 App. Div. 62, 241 N. Y. S. 369), entered after a hearing on the report of a referee, disbarring each of respondents as an attorney, respondents appeal.

Appeals dismissed.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.

Harold R. Medina and James J. Regan, both of New York City, for appellants.

H. Bartow Farr, and Isidor J. Kresel, both of New York City, for respondent.

POUND, J.

The appeals herein have been taken without leave of this court or of the Appellate Division on the ground that the orders finally determine disbarment proceedings ‘wherein is directly involved the construction of the Constitution of the state or of the United States.’ N. Y. Const. art. 6, § 7(1); Civil Practice Act, § 588, subd. 1. The clause of the Constitution the construction of which is said to be ‘directly involved’ is the familiar one which provides: ‘No person * * * shall * * * be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ N. Y. Const. art. 1, § 6.

This clause is said to be ‘directly involved’ because the appellants herein on the preliminary investigation of ambulance chasing ordered by the Appellate Division (People ex rel. Karlin v. Culkin, 248 N. Y. 465, 162 N. E. 487, 60 A. L. R. 851) asserted their claim of privilege and refused to answer certain questions propounded to them as to their professional conduct. Although they afterwards testified freely before the referee in the disbarment proceedings on the same matter without self-incrimination, it was, on the preliminary investigation not so ‘perfectly evident and manifest that the answer called for (could not) incriminate as to preclude all reasonable doubt or fair argument.’ People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219, 231,38 N. E. 303, 306. They were sustained in their claim of privilege, and properly so.

When, however, the Appellate Division acted in the disbarment proceedings it held that the claim of privilege was asserted in bad faith on the preliminary hearing for the purpose of hindering and impeding the investigation, and that such conduct justified the removal of appellants from the practice of law. The witness may not claim his privilege when he is clearly contumacious, not acting in good faith, but making the claim as a mere pretext to avoid giving nonincriminating answers. People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes, supra.

We fail to see how the construction of the Constitution is directly involved (People ex rel. Moss v. Board of Sup'rs of Oneida County, 221 N. Y. 367, 117 N. E. 578;People ex rel. Curtis v. Kidney, 225 N. Y. 299, 122 N. E. 241) or that any question of constitutional right is involved. We pass as unnecessary for consideration at this time the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Laba v. Board of Educ. of Newark
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 4 Febrero 1957
    ... ... See Association of American Law Schools, Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, Proceedings 113 (1953); Byse, supra, at 881. See also In re Levy, 255 N.Y. 223, 174 N.E. 461 (1931); ... Page 389 ... In re Grae, 282 N.Y. 428, 26 N.E.2d 963, 127 A.L.R. 1276 (1940). Cf. Sheiner v. State, Fla., 82 So.2d 657 (1955); In re Holland, 377 Ill. 346, 36 N.E.2d 543 (1941). If after the inquiry it appears that the teachers are now members of the ... ...
  • Winters v. Lavine
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 16 Enero 1978
    ... ... Haydorn v. Carroll, 225 N.Y. 84, 88, 121 N.E. 463, 464 (1918); accord, People ex rel. Ryan v. Lynch, 262 N.Y. 1, 4, 186 N.E. 28, 29 (1933); In re Levy, 255 N.Y. 223, 226, 174 N.E. 461, 462 (1931); see Local 824, International Longshoremen's Association, (Ind.) v. Waterfront Commission, 6 N.Y.2d 861, 188 N.Y.S.2d 562, 160 N.E.2d 93, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 835, 80 S.Ct. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 76 (1959); id. at 862, 160 N.E.2d at 94, 188 N.Y.S.2d at 563 ... ...
  • Mildner v. Gulotta
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 29 Marzo 1976
    ... ... at 142. See Fryberger v. N. W. Harris Company, Inc., 273 N.Y. 115, 6 N.E.2d 398 (1937); cf. Matter of Levy, 255 N.Y. 223, 174 N.E. 461 (1931) ...         Under the current rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department, that Court normally institutes disciplinary proceedings upon the recommendation of a duly constituted joint bar association grievance committee, which has the power to ... ...
  • Cohen, In re
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 31 Diciembre 1959
    ... ... (People ex rel. Karlin v. Culkin, 248 N.Y. 465, 470, 162 N.E. 487, 489 [emphasis supplied].) ...          This conclusion as to the holding in the Karlin case, supra, also finds ample support in the opinion of the Court of Appeals in a subsequent case (Matter of Levy, 255 N.Y. 223, 225, 174 N.E. 461, 462). In the Levy case, the Appellate Division in the First Department [9 A.D.2d 447] had disbarred an attorney because it found that upon a judicial inquiry, similar to the one here involved, he had pleaded his constitutional privilege in bad faith. The Court of ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT