Case Name: In the Matter of Anthony Darmstadt
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898
Citations: 35 A.D. 285
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Anthony Darmstadt.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 285–285

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Anthony Darmstadt.
Attorney convicted of a crime—application for an order striking his name from roll — under what law it must he determined.
An application for an order disbarring an attorney convicted of crime in 1887, must be determined under the law as it existed wbeh the conviction took place; and under the provisions of section 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it existed in 1887, a convicted attorney might show, if he could, that the crime of which he had been found guilty was an offense involving no moral turpitude, or show any other circumstance indicating that the fact of conviction should not alone and of itself be deemed sufficient cause for his removal from office.
Application for an order disbarring Anthony Darmstadt, an attorney and counselor at law of the Supreme Court, who had, in 1887, been convicted of crime.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
We think that this application must be determined under the law as it existed when the respondent was convicted, instead of under the law as since amended. The subsequent amendments to section 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure were prospective only in their operation, and cannot be deemed to relate to a prior conviction. At the time when the respondent was convicted, in 1887, that section read as follows: " An attorney or counsellor, who is guilty of any deceit, malpractice, crime or misdemeanor, may be suspended from practice, or removed from office, by the Supreme Court at a General Term thereof." Under this provision a convicted attorney might show, if he could, that the crime of which he had been found guilty was an offense involving no moral turpitude, or any other circumstance indicating that the fact of conviction should not alone and of itself be deemed sufficient cause for his removal from office. We think that the respondent in the present proceeding has the same right, and, to the end that he may furnish such proof of this character as exists, the matter will be referred to a referee to take testimony and report to this court.
Proceeding referred to Herbert T. Ketcham, Esq., to take proof as to the circumstances attending the conviction of the respondent and as to his subsequent conduct, and report the same to this court with the opinion of the referee thereon.