Toward a Right to Counsel in Civil Cases in New York State: A Report of the New York State Bar Association
Laura Abel
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Touro Law Review, Vol. 25, pp. 32-70, 2009
NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 10-11
Abstract:
The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) and 11 other bar associations co-sponsored a 2006 American Bar Association (ABA) resolution that urged federal and state jurisdictions to establish a right to counsel in civil cases concerning basic human needs. This report compares the scope of the existing right to counsel in New York State to the five categories of basic human needs cases identified by the ABA: Cases concerning shelter, sustenance, safety, health or child custody. It also assesses the existing right to counsel in cases concerning members of special or vulnerable populations, and in cases involving deprivation of physical liberty. It also suggests areas for expansion of the right, particularly regarding cases concerning evictions, foreclosures, and unemployment insurance appeals.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Fudiciary Duty
The fiduciary relationship of partners is discussed in 59A Am. Jur. 2d Partnership § 420 (1987):
The courts universally recognize the fiduciary relationship of partners and impose on them obligations of the utmost good faith and integrity in their dealings with one another in partnership affairs. It is a fundamental characteristic of partnership that the partners’ relationship is one of trust and confidence when dealing with each other in partnership matters.
Partners are held to a standard stricter than the morals of the marketplace, and their fiduciary duties should be broadly construed, connoting not mere honesty but the punctilio of honor most sensitive. In all matters connected with the partnership every partner is bound to act in a manner not to obtain any advantage over his copartner in the partnership affairs by the slightest misrepresentation, concealment, threat, or adverse pressure of any kind. A partner cannot act too quickly to protect his own financial position at the expense of his partners, even in the absence of malice
The courts universally recognize the fiduciary relationship of partners and impose on them obligations of the utmost good faith and integrity in their dealings with one another in partnership affairs. It is a fundamental characteristic of partnership that the partners’ relationship is one of trust and confidence when dealing with each other in partnership matters.
Partners are held to a standard stricter than the morals of the marketplace, and their fiduciary duties should be broadly construed, connoting not mere honesty but the punctilio of honor most sensitive. In all matters connected with the partnership every partner is bound to act in a manner not to obtain any advantage over his copartner in the partnership affairs by the slightest misrepresentation, concealment, threat, or adverse pressure of any kind. A partner cannot act too quickly to protect his own financial position at the expense of his partners, even in the absence of malice
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Jubic v. Jubic, et. al., Continued on Appeal
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Appellant George J. Jubic (aka George M. Jubic, Jr.) and Respondent Robert Jubic are brothers . In 1988, their father, Mr. George M. Jubic, deeded a certain parcel of land to them, located at 19 Cross St. in the City of Troy, County of Rensselaer, NY. The property was deeded to the brothers on the condition they create a general partnership for the purpose of constructing a multi-unit apartment building upon it whereby the brothers could derive income “for life” from rental income and at the same time grant a life-estate to the elderly parents in one of the units.
The agreement was for the two brothers to construct the building themselves all the while acting as equal partners, sharing jointly and equally in all liabilities and assets.
At the time of the signing over of the deed, Respondent Robert Jubic bought with him a close personal friend of his and partner in other real-estate ventures, (Respondent) Robert McAllister. Respondent Robert Jubic insisted that (Respondent) McAllister’s name be added onto the deed as a full 1/3 partner. Over objections, at Respondent Robert Jubics insistence, (Respondent) Robert McAllister’s name was added to the deed as a full 1/3 partner.
(See deed attached as Ex. ___________. Note Appellants aka name on deed as George M. Jubic, Jr.)
On 1/30/90, the three partners took out a joint loan together from the Troy Savings Bank, the funds to be used for construction materials. (See Troy Savings Bank loan, Ex________.)
The three partners worked side by side through all stages of the construction process, and by the end of 1993 the first of five units was completed and rented out. By 1995 all five units were completed and occupied, four being rented out and one given to the elderly Jubic parents as a life estate.
Respondent Robert Jubic was the self-appointed book-keeper of all the partnership affairs, and took care of all the accounts payable and receivable for the venture. As a partner and family member, Appellant trusted and put full faith and credit in his brother Roberts honesty and integrity to act as a fiduciary for his partnership interests, and trusted that he would be notified, as promised,.. when the venture started making profits.
From the years of construction to about 1999, Appellant preformed general maintenance duties on the property such as lawn and yard work, trash disposal, clean up of apartments in-between rentals, and other repairs in general.
In the year 2000, based on information provided by certain family members, appellant became aware that the joint loan taken out in 1990 from the Troy Savings Bank for construction of the apartment building had been fully satisfied on 5/31/96, leading Appellant to believe that the partnership property was indeed realizing profits. Appellant was never informed that this loan had been satisfied. (See Satisfaction of Mortgage attached as Ex. ______________.)
After this discovery Appellant hired attorney James L. Coffin to represent his interest in the partnership. Mr. Coffin tried unsuccessfully to resolve the issue informally but to no avail. (See “demand” letter attached as Ex.________.) When he requested an accounting he was provided with a spread sheet that indicated that Appellant George J. Jubic was indeed listed as 1/3rd partner and that his 1/3rd portion of the debt for the Troy Savings Bank loan had been paid out of partnership earnings. (See spreadsheet attached as Ex._______.) It is also stated on this spreadsheet that, from the year 1990 to 2004, the venture grossed nearly $300,000. It was also discovered upon review of this spreadsheet that the Respondents claimed “additional loans” were taken out “as against” the partnership property, of which Appellant had no knowledge of and was not a party to. However, a search of the clerks office in 2004 showed no liens were levied against the partnership property, a fact the partners could not satisfactorily explain.
In view of the failure to informally resolve the issue of the true and exact financial affairs of the partnership,….appellant was forced to file suit.
JUDICIAL HISTORY
On Aug. 4, 2005, by and through his attorney James L. Coffin, a lawsuit was filed against the partners in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Rensselaer Co. (Acting Supreme Court Judge Hon. Christian Hummel, Case # 214005) said lawsuit asking for an accounting, dissolution of partnership and partition of partnership property with appointment of receiver, and alleging several and various other causes of action including Breech of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Conversion and Unjust enrichment.
(See copy of complaint attached as Ex.______________.)
The parties entered into the discovery process whereby Respondants made the first demands and Appellant fully complied. However, Respondants failed to comply with any portion of appellants discovery requests and a moton to compell production was made and granted (See Order to Produce attached as Ex.________.) Despite the Order, Respondants failed to produce any of the documents requested by appellant and a Order of Preclusion was asked for and issued (See Order of Preclusion Ex._______.)
On or about Dec. 10, 2006, a pre-trial conference was schedualed but it was at this time that appellants counsel was nowhere to be found. A call to the NYS Bar Association was made in efforts to acertain the whereabouts of Mr. Coffin and it was discovered that he had been permanently barred from practicing law in the state of New York for matters unrelated to this case, and he was in fact at that time in prison for mis-use of another clients funds.
APPELLANTS REQUESTS FOR ASSIGNMENT OF COUNCEL
(To be continued)
Appellant George J. Jubic (aka George M. Jubic, Jr.) and Respondent Robert Jubic are brothers . In 1988, their father, Mr. George M. Jubic, deeded a certain parcel of land to them, located at 19 Cross St. in the City of Troy, County of Rensselaer, NY. The property was deeded to the brothers on the condition they create a general partnership for the purpose of constructing a multi-unit apartment building upon it whereby the brothers could derive income “for life” from rental income and at the same time grant a life-estate to the elderly parents in one of the units.
The agreement was for the two brothers to construct the building themselves all the while acting as equal partners, sharing jointly and equally in all liabilities and assets.
At the time of the signing over of the deed, Respondent Robert Jubic bought with him a close personal friend of his and partner in other real-estate ventures, (Respondent) Robert McAllister. Respondent Robert Jubic insisted that (Respondent) McAllister’s name be added onto the deed as a full 1/3 partner. Over objections, at Respondent Robert Jubics insistence, (Respondent) Robert McAllister’s name was added to the deed as a full 1/3 partner.
(See deed attached as Ex. ___________. Note Appellants aka name on deed as George M. Jubic, Jr.)
On 1/30/90, the three partners took out a joint loan together from the Troy Savings Bank, the funds to be used for construction materials. (See Troy Savings Bank loan, Ex________.)
The three partners worked side by side through all stages of the construction process, and by the end of 1993 the first of five units was completed and rented out. By 1995 all five units were completed and occupied, four being rented out and one given to the elderly Jubic parents as a life estate.
Respondent Robert Jubic was the self-appointed book-keeper of all the partnership affairs, and took care of all the accounts payable and receivable for the venture. As a partner and family member, Appellant trusted and put full faith and credit in his brother Roberts honesty and integrity to act as a fiduciary for his partnership interests, and trusted that he would be notified, as promised,.. when the venture started making profits.
From the years of construction to about 1999, Appellant preformed general maintenance duties on the property such as lawn and yard work, trash disposal, clean up of apartments in-between rentals, and other repairs in general.
In the year 2000, based on information provided by certain family members, appellant became aware that the joint loan taken out in 1990 from the Troy Savings Bank for construction of the apartment building had been fully satisfied on 5/31/96, leading Appellant to believe that the partnership property was indeed realizing profits. Appellant was never informed that this loan had been satisfied. (See Satisfaction of Mortgage attached as Ex. ______________.)
After this discovery Appellant hired attorney James L. Coffin to represent his interest in the partnership. Mr. Coffin tried unsuccessfully to resolve the issue informally but to no avail. (See “demand” letter attached as Ex.________.) When he requested an accounting he was provided with a spread sheet that indicated that Appellant George J. Jubic was indeed listed as 1/3rd partner and that his 1/3rd portion of the debt for the Troy Savings Bank loan had been paid out of partnership earnings. (See spreadsheet attached as Ex._______.) It is also stated on this spreadsheet that, from the year 1990 to 2004, the venture grossed nearly $300,000. It was also discovered upon review of this spreadsheet that the Respondents claimed “additional loans” were taken out “as against” the partnership property, of which Appellant had no knowledge of and was not a party to. However, a search of the clerks office in 2004 showed no liens were levied against the partnership property, a fact the partners could not satisfactorily explain.
In view of the failure to informally resolve the issue of the true and exact financial affairs of the partnership,….appellant was forced to file suit.
JUDICIAL HISTORY
On Aug. 4, 2005, by and through his attorney James L. Coffin, a lawsuit was filed against the partners in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Rensselaer Co. (Acting Supreme Court Judge Hon. Christian Hummel, Case # 214005) said lawsuit asking for an accounting, dissolution of partnership and partition of partnership property with appointment of receiver, and alleging several and various other causes of action including Breech of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Conversion and Unjust enrichment.
(See copy of complaint attached as Ex.______________.)
The parties entered into the discovery process whereby Respondants made the first demands and Appellant fully complied. However, Respondants failed to comply with any portion of appellants discovery requests and a moton to compell production was made and granted (See Order to Produce attached as Ex.________.) Despite the Order, Respondants failed to produce any of the documents requested by appellant and a Order of Preclusion was asked for and issued (See Order of Preclusion Ex._______.)
On or about Dec. 10, 2006, a pre-trial conference was schedualed but it was at this time that appellants counsel was nowhere to be found. A call to the NYS Bar Association was made in efforts to acertain the whereabouts of Mr. Coffin and it was discovered that he had been permanently barred from practicing law in the state of New York for matters unrelated to this case, and he was in fact at that time in prison for mis-use of another clients funds.
APPELLANTS REQUESTS FOR ASSIGNMENT OF COUNCEL
(To be continued)
Monday, April 11, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
