Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MATTER SIDNEY RABEKOFF (04/15/69)

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT 1969.NY.41148 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 299 N.Y.S.2d 46; 31 A.D.2d 501 April 15, 1969 IN THE MATTER OF SIDNEY RABEKOFF, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER John G. Bonomi of counsel (Michael Franck with him on the brief), for petitioner. Sidney Feldshuh for respondent. Stevens, P. J., Eager, Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ., concur. Author: Per Curiam


Stevens, P. J., Eager, Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ., concur.

Author: Per Curiam

 Respondent, admitted to the Bar in 1947, was retained by an out-of-State resident to collect from a savings institution the proceeds of settlement of a negligence case there deposited by court order during her minority. He forged his client's endorsement and converted the proceeds of the institution's check, thereafter giving a false reason when asked by the client to explain delay in remitting. The Referee has found that respondent admitted all "the operative facts" and that his explanation, not credited, was that an automobile accident, sustained on the day of conversion, affected his judgment. Actually, the accident appears to have brought his financial problems to a head and to have caused him to yield to temptation. Respondent, having violated canons 11, 29, and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, is, accordingly, guilty of professional misconduct (Judiciary Law, § 90, subd. 2). The motion to confirm the Referee's report is granted.

This peculation appears to have been the sole aberrant act in an otherwise honorable professional career of two decades, marked by modest living, and immediately preceded by outstanding service in World War II. He made full restitution with interest and it was found "that it was respondent's intention to return the converted fund as soon as he had the money to do so." Respondent co-operated fully in the investigation of the charge against him. He should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Respondent should be suspended for a period of one year.

Respondent suspended for a period of one year effective May 15, 1969.

Disposition

Respondent suspended for a period of one year effective May 15, 1969.

19690415

© 1998 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.