Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta In re Spenser 203 N.Y. 613

← Cases

In re Spenser

203 N.Y. 613 Court N.Y. Decision date 1911-12-05 English

Decision Majority · Dissent — Willard Bartlett, J.

Contents
p. 613
In the Matter of Armand Spenser, an Attorney, Appellant. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Respondent.

Headnote

Matter of Spenser, 143 App. Div. 229 , affirmed.
(Argued November 21, 1911;
decided December 5, 1911.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 6, 1911, disbarring the appellant Armand Spenser
p. 614
from practicing as an attorney and counselor at law in the state of New York.
Louis S. Posner, Walter S. Dryfoos and Cyril F. Dos Passos for appellant.
Paul Fuller, Jr., for respondent.

Order affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Haight, Werner, Hiscooic, Chase and Collin, JJ.

(dissenting). I dissent on the ground that the order of the Appellate Division is defective in omitting to state the specific misconduct of the attorney. The opinion of the Appellate Division indicates that the judges of that tribunal have found the appellant guilty of the most serious charges upon which he was acquitted by the official referee; but however this may be, I think that a definite and specific adjudication of misconduct should be required to be made by the Appellate Division, as the basis of an order disbarring or suspending an attorney. As was pointed out by Judge Werner in Matter of Droege ( 197 N. Y. 44 ), this court from an early day has exercised jurisdiction to review the action of the Supreme Court in cases of this character; but, in the absence of some adjudication analogous to findings of fact, no effective review is practicable. I think the case should be sent back to the Appellate Division in order that the defect which I have pointed out may be remedied.

Cases cited