Majority
p. 210In the Matter of Silas B. Axtell, an Attorney, Appellant. Association of the Bar of the City of New York et al., Respondents. (Argued May 14, 1931; decided July 15, 1931.) The Court of Appeals may remand the case for a redetermination of the penalty. (Matter of Kaufmann, 245 N. Y. 423 .) The Court of Appeals has limited its review in disbarment cases to ascertaining whether there is any evidence to sustain the findings of professional misconduct. (Matter of Flannery, 212 N. Y. 610 ; Matter of Hawes, 217 N. Y. 602 ; Matter of Goodman, 199 N. Y. 143 .) Petitioners have amply sustained the burden of proof. (Matter of Herrman, 175 App. Div. 310 ; Matter of Newell, 174 App. Div. 94 ; Matter of O’ Neill, 184 App. Div. 75 ; Matter of Rouss, 221 N. Y. 81 .)
George V. A. McCloskey and Silas B. Axtell for appellant.
Sidney Handler, James A. Delehanty and Isidor J. Kresel for respondents.
The acts of solicitation proved against the appellant attorney are extenuated, but not excused, by his relations to the mariners’ union and to foreign consulates.
p. 211
The sentence of disbarment is a severe one, but misconduct being proved, the punishment to follow was to be determined by the Appellate Division, and is not subject to revision here (Matter of Hawes, 217 N. Y. 602 ).
The court that pronounced the sentence has jurisdiction exclusive of any other to mitigate its rigor.
The order should be affirmed.
Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.
Cases cited
- In re the Petition of Kaufmann 245 N. Y. 423 p. 210
- In re Flannery 212 N. Y. 610 p. 210
- In re Hawes 217 N. Y. 602 p. 210, p. 211
- In re Goodman 199 N. Y. 143 p. 210
- In re Newell 174 App. Div. 94 p. 210
- In re Rouss 221 N. Y. 81 p. 210