Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1944

In re Hoenig

In re Hoenig
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 19, 1944
268 A.D. 8; 48 N.Y.S.2d 210; 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3093

Counsel

Einar Ghrystie for petitioner., No appearance for respondent.

In re Hoenig

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

An Official Beferee has found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct. In view of mitigating circumstances and the additional fact that the Beferee in his report stated that the respondent’s improper conduct was not caused by any desire to defraud his clients, but “ solely through carelessness and loose business methods ”, we believe a censure is sufficient punishment.

The respondent should be censured.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Dore and Cohn, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.