Kaufman, In re

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation266 N.Y.S.2d 958,25 A.D.2d 48
Decision Date03 February 1966
PartiesIn the Matter of Robert R. KAUFMAN, an Attorney.

Page 958

266 N.Y.S.2d 958
25 A.D.2d 48
In the Matter of Robert R. KAUFMAN, an Attorney.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Feb. 3, 1966.

[25 A.D.2d 49] Michael Franck, New York City, for petitioner (John G. Bonomi, New York City, attorney), for The Association of the Bar of City of New York.

H. Elliot Wales, New York City, for respondent.

[25 A.D.2d 50] Before BOTEIN, P. J., and BREITEL, STEVENS, EAGER and STEUER, JJ.

[25 A.D.2d 49] PER CURIAM:

This is a motion to confirm the report of the referee which sustained charges of professional misconduct against the respondent.

Respondent, age 51 years, was admitted to practice February 1938 in the Appellate Division, Second Department. Proceedings were instituted against him June 12, 1962. Subsequently a supplemental petition was filed. In all a total of 9 charges were preferred of which one, charge No. 4, was discontinued, and charges 7 and 9 were not sustained by the referee. The charges which was sustained and upon which petitioner moved to confirm the referee's report may be summarized briefly.

It was charged that respondent demanded and obtained from one William Barash, his client, $3,000 in cash over the fee charged on the representation that he could improperly influence marital litigation in behalf of his client and that he converted the proceeds of a check in the amount of $670 payable to Marilyn and William Barash, husband and

Page 959

wife; that he had made and caused his client, a Mrs. Serayder, to make a false statement in affidavits submitted by them in a matrimonial proceeding in which he represented Mrs. Serayder. That charge was sustained only to the extent that the referee found he failed to make proper disclosure.

There were two additional charges that he engaged in a course of conduct of issuing worthless checks. Respondent's contention that the checks were for personal matters and that all were eventually made good does not change the nature of the offense or invalidate the determination.

The final charge, sustained by the referee, as were the others referred to, was that the respondent converted to his own use without authority the sum of $5275 representing his client's share of a settlement in a personal injury action. The evidence amply supported the referee's findings and the report is confirmed.

[25 A.D.2d 50] The respondent as been guilty of professional misconduct which demonstrates his unfitness to continue in the practice of the law. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Reape, In re
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 28, 1967
    ...in most instances demonstrates unfitness for membership at the Bar and we have held so repeatedly.' (See, also, Matter of Kaufman, 25 A.D.2d 48, 266 N.Y.S.2d 958; Matter of Turk, 25 A.D.2d 255, 268 N.Y.S.2d 569.) 'Deliberate and repeated conversion of clients' funds demonstrates unfitness f......
  • Kaufman v. Association of Bar of City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • September 22, 1966
    ...of Appeals of New York. Sept. 22, 1966. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Attorney, who had been disbarred, 25 A.D.2d 48, 266 N.Y.S.2d 958, made a motion in the Appellate Division for a rehearing, new trial, and reconsideration or reargument with respect to ch......
  • Kaufman v. Association of Bar of City of New York York
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1967
    ...an order May 4, 1967, which denied a motion by attorney (1) to vacate an order, entered February 3, 1966, 25 A.D.2d [20 N.Y.2d 745] 48, 266 N.Y.S.2d 958, disbarring him, (2) to reopen the hearings and refer the matter to a different referee, (3) to amend the order of disbarment to recite th......
  • Kaufman v. Association of Bar of City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • January 12, 1967
    ...Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 12, 1967. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. The Appellate Division, 25 A.D.2d 48, 266 N.Y.S.2d 958, entered an order on February 3, 1966 disbarring the attorney, and entered an order June 16, 1966 denying a motion by attorney......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Reape, In re
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 28, 1967
    ...in most instances demonstrates unfitness for membership at the Bar and we have held so repeatedly.' (See, also, Matter of Kaufman, 25 A.D.2d 48, 266 N.Y.S.2d 958; Matter of Turk, 25 A.D.2d 255, 268 N.Y.S.2d 569.) 'Deliberate and repeated conversion of clients' funds demonstrates unfitness f......
  • Kaufman v. Association of Bar of City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • September 22, 1966
    ...of Appeals of New York. Sept. 22, 1966. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Attorney, who had been disbarred, 25 A.D.2d 48, 266 N.Y.S.2d 958, made a motion in the Appellate Division for a rehearing, new trial, and reconsideration or reargument with respect to ch......
  • Kaufman v. Association of Bar of City of New York York
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1967
    ...an order May 4, 1967, which denied a motion by attorney (1) to vacate an order, entered February 3, 1966, 25 A.D.2d [20 N.Y.2d 745] 48, 266 N.Y.S.2d 958, disbarring him, (2) to reopen the hearings and refer the matter to a different referee, (3) to amend the order of disbarment to recite th......
  • Kaufman v. Association of Bar of City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • January 12, 1967
    ...Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 12, 1967. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. The Appellate Division, 25 A.D.2d 48, 266 N.Y.S.2d 958, entered an order on February 3, 1966 disbarring the attorney, and entered an order June 16, 1966 denying a motion by attorney......
  • 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