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 HARRY A. AUERBACH (09/08/69)

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 1969.NY.42802 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 304 N.Y.S.2d 162; 32 A.D.2d 483 September 8, 1969 IN THE MATTER OF HARRY A. AUERBACH, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. BROOKLYN BAR ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Brooklyn Bar Association. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on November 1, 1944, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. Harold A. Cannold for petitioner. Mark A. Landsman for respondent. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur. Author: Per Curiam


Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Brooklyn Bar Association. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on November 1, 1944, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department.

Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Author: Per Curiam

 In this proceeding to discipline an attorney admitted to practice by this court on November 1, 1944, petitioner moves for an order accepting the resignation of respondent Harry A. Auerbach as an attorney and striking his name from the roll of attorneys of the State of New York.

The charges set forth in the petition commencing this proceeding arose out of nine separate complaints filed with the Brooklyn Bar Association. A tenth supplemental charge was subsequently added.

The first complaint charged that respondent, in connection with the sale of the complainant's residence, had the complainant indorse all checks which were made to her as payee; that the respondent retained those checks and, in their place, gave the complainant his personal checks for a lesser amount after deducting the purchase price and "the other disbursements" on property she was purchasing; that these personal checks, one for $2,000 and the other for $225.06 were returned "unpaid"; that respondent failed to send the complainant a closing statement; and that an additional sum of $2,000 was not accounted for by respondent.

The second complaint against respondent charged that in connection with a real estate closing, respondent gave the complainant his check for $589; that this check was twice returned for insufficient funds, and that the respondent has failed to make payment despite numerous promises to do so.

In his answer respondent admitted that the three checks mentioned in the first and second complaints were returned for insufficient funds, but alleges that eventually both complainants were paid in full.

The third complaint charged that respondent was holding the sum of $750 in escrow pursuant to a contract dated March 28, 1966; that respondent refused to release this money despite demands by the complainant and his attorney; that respondent had failed to reply to letters dealing with this matter; that on November 29, 1967, the complainant obtained a judgment for $302.90 to be paid out of the escrow money; and that respondent had failed to release any part of the escrow fund.

In his answer respondent stated that he is not holding any escrow in this case.

The fourth complaint charged that respondent acted as attorney for the complainant in the purchase of a two-family house; that, pursuant to respondent's instructions, the complainant gave him $10,000 to pay cash for the house; that closing of title occurred on December 17, 1966; that respondent did not pay the seller in cash but instead has been making mortgage payments to the seller every month; and that the seller has threatened foreclosure action because of defaults in these mortgage payments.

In his answer respondent stated, with respect to this complaint, filed June 11, 1968, that an action was commenced by the complainant against the seller of the house, which was settled in October, 1968, and all the money received by him has been accounted for.

The fifth complaint charged that in 1960 or 1961, respondent was given an unspecified sum of money to pay off the mortgage; that as late as 1967, the complainant believed the mortgage had been paid; and that this mortgage had not been paid.

In his answer respondent stated that there is an action pending between the parties with respect to this claim, in which respondent has a substantial counterclaim.

The sixth complaint charged that on May 22, 1967, the complainant gave respondent, his attorney, a check for $4,350 to be held in escrow for the purchase of a house; that this transaction was never completed; that respondent issued his personal check for the ...


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.