In re Randel

• Citation: 52 N.E. 1106,158 N.Y. 216
• Parties: In re RANDEL.
• Decision Date: 28 February 1899
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

158 N.Y. 216

52 N.E. 1106

In re RANDEL.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 28, 1899.

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, First department.

Disbarment proceedings against William F. Randel, an attorney, on charges preferred by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. From an order of the appellate division disbarring defendant, and removing him from office as an attorney and counselor at law (55 N. Y. Supp. 1147), he appeals. Affirmed.

T. Mitchell Tyng, for appellant.

George C. Holt, for respondent.

BARTLETT, J.

The material facts out of which this proceeding arises may be briefly stated. One John Magdalinski became the client of the defendant under the following circumstances: Magdalinski is a German musician, a man of little capacity for the transaction of business, and the referee states that in his appearance before him he was even dull in the comprehension of ordinary business terms. He had saved some $2,000, and in September, 1894, desired to invest it. He had a friend named Metzger, also a musician, who held a mortgage for $2,000 as guardian for an infant, and wished to raise money for estate purposes by selling it. When Metzger learned that Magdalinski had this amount to invest, he suggested the purchase of the mortgage, and offered to take him to his attorney, the defendant, William F. Randel, where the transaction could be closed. Thereupon Metzger introduced Magdalinski to the defendant, and in the interview that followed the defendant told him that he knew all about the mortgage, and that it was a gilt-edge security. The mortgage was then assigned to Magdalinski, and he paid the $2,000 to Metzger. Two or three months later a summons in a foreclosure suit upon a $3,500 mortgage was served upon Metzger, who immediately notified Magdalinski, and urged him to protect his rights, as it was averred in the complaint that the mortgage was a first lien upon the same premises covered by Magdalinski's mortgage. The fact was that these mortgages were recorded at the same time, and were entitled to share pro rata in the money realized upon the sale. Magdalinski was made a party to the foreclosure suit. Both mortgages were foreclosed together, and the suit proceeded to judgment and sale. The proceeds of sale were insufficient to pay the liens in full, and the amount realized on Magdalinski's mortgage was $1,480.21. The sale of the mortgaged premises took place on May 22, 1895, and on June 21, 1895, the sheriff gave the defendant, as Magdalinski's attorney, his check for this amount; also his costs in a separate check for $213.45. It was proved by the check book of the defendant that these checks were deposited in his bank account the next day, June 22d. It also appears that the defendant on the same day drew a check to the order of one Capt. D. F. Edwards for $1,250, which was in part payment for an interest he was purchasing in the brig Sunlight, owned by Capt. Edwards; it being a second payment on that account, he having the day before drawn a check to the order of Capt. Edwards for $1,000. The greater part of the money received from the sheriff on the mortgage was necessary to make the $1,250 check good. It further appears that between the day of the sale, May 22, 1895, and on the 17th of July, 1895, Magdalinski made many calls upon the defendant for the purpose of obtaining from him the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged premises, and that the defendant, in none of these interviews, disclosed to him the fact that he had received the money from the sheriff. Magdalinski swears that about the middle of July, in ignorance of the fact that defendant had been paid by the sheriff, he received from the defendant his note for $2,000, dated July 1, 1895, and payable five months after date; also received a written...