Case ID: ny_217/html/0602-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Gilbert Ray Hawes, Appellant. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Respondent.
    Attorneys — discipline —jurisdiction of Court of Appeals.
    Questions relating to the comparative weight of evidence or the fairness of the sentence in a proceeding to discipline an attorney are • beyond the j urisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
    
      Matter of Hawes, 169 App. Div. 644, affirmed.
    (Argued January 11, 1916;
    decided January 18, 1916.)
    Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 19, 1915, which suspended the appellant, an attorney, from practice for one year.
    
      
      Gilbert Ray Hawes and Solon J. Liebeskind for appellant.
    
      Einar Chrystie for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The order should be affirmed upon the

ground that there is some evidence to support the charges, and that questions relating to the comparative weight of evidence or the fairness of the sentence, whatever may be our views about them, are beyond our jurisdiction (Matter of Flannery, 212 N. Y. 610).

Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Seabury and Pound, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.