Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re Montegriffo 156 N.Y.S. 512

← Cases

In re Montegriffo

156 N.Y.S. 512 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1915-12-30 English

Contents

Majority

p. 512
In re MONTEGRIFFO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 30, 1915.)

Headnote

Attorney and Client <S=^38—Disbarment—Grounds.
Where the course of conduct of an attorney shows that he is unfit to remain a member of an honorable profession, although the charges, taken separately, might not require disbarment, he should be disbarred.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Attorney and Client, Cent. Dig. §§ 51, 61; Dec. Dig. <S^>38.]
<@=s>Ear other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
In tire matter of Agostino H. Montegriffo, Jr., an attorney. Application on report of the official referee on charges against respondent for professional misconduct. Respondent disbarred.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, SCOTT, and SMITH, JJ.
Finar Chrystie, of New York City (Henry F. Wolff, of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.

The respondent, who was admitted to the bar in the year 1905, was charged by the Association of the Bar with a number of fraudulent acts, some of minor importance, but all indicating his unfitness to remain a member of the profession. It would serve no good purpose to recount in detail the many instances of fraud and wrongdoing with which he was charged, and which have been fully sustained by the evidence, and which are detailed at length in the report of the official referee filed herewith. Some of these offenses are of a very serious character; others, perhaps, standing by themselves, would not be sufficient to require the infliction of the most severe penalty; but, taking them all together, the respondent appears, as has been shown by the evidence, to be a totally unfit person to remain a member of an honorable profession. Many of the charges he made no attempt to defend himself against, and as to others his defense, and his testimony in his own behalf is characterized by the official referee, and wc think justly, as being evasive and false.

The report of the referee is therefore approved, and the respondent is disbarred.