highest standard in New York

2000Although it can be argued that the defendant herein breached ethical rules established by the Code of Professional Responsibility (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 [a] [3] [22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a) (3)]; Matter of Ackerman, 231 AD2d 192 ; see also, Matter of Lieberman, 244 AD2d 73 ; Matter of Danas, 236 AD2d 44 ; Matter of Hoppmann, 230 AD2d 213 ), the plaintiff did not set forth sufficient allegations of deceit to state a cause of action to recover damages (Estate of Steinberg v Harmon, 259 AD2d 318 ; Mecca v Shang, 258 AD2d 569 , 571).

2000Although it can be argued that the defendant herein breached ethical rules established by the Code of Professional Responsibility (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 [a] [3] [22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a) (3)]; Matter of Ackerman, 231 AD2d 192 ; see also, Matter of Lieberman, 244 AD2d 73 ; Matter of Danas, 236 AD2d 44 ; Matter of Hoppmann, 230 AD2d 213 ), the plaintiff did not set forth sufficient allegations of deceit to state a cause of action to recover damages (Estate of Steinberg v Harmon, 259 AD2d 318 ; Mecca v Shang, 258 AD2d 569 , 571).

2000Although it can be argued that the defendant herein breached ethical rules established by the Code of Professional Responsibility (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 [a] [3] [22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a) (3)]; Matter of Ackerman, 231 AD2d 192 ; see also, Matter of Lieberman, 244 AD2d 73 ; Matter of Danas, 236 AD2d 44 ; Matter of Hoppmann, 230 AD2d 213 ), the plaintiff did not set forth sufficient allegations of deceit to state a cause of action to recover damages (Estate of Steinberg v Harmon, 259 AD2d 318 ; Mecca v Shang, 258 AD2d 569 , 571).

2000Although it can be argued that the defendant herein breached ethical rules established by the Code of Professional Responsibility (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 [a] [3] [22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a) (3)]; Matter of Ackerman, 231 AD2d 192 ; see also, Matter of Lieberman, 244 AD2d 73 ; Matter of Danas, 236 AD2d 44 ; Matter of Hoppmann, 230 AD2d 213 ), the plaintiff did not set forth sufficient allegations of deceit to state a cause of action to recover damages (Estate of Steinberg v Harmon, 259 AD2d 318 ; Mecca v Shang, 258 AD2d 569 , 571).

2000Although it can be argued that the defendant herein breached ethical rules established by the Code of Professional Responsibility (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 [a] [3] [22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a) (3)]; Matter of Ackerman, 231 AD2d 192 ; see also, Matter of Lieberman, 244 AD2d 73 ; Matter of Danas, 236 AD2d 44 ; Matter of Hoppmann, 230 AD2d 213 ), the plaintiff did not set forth sufficient allegations of deceit to state a cause of action to recover damages (Estate of Steinberg v Harmon, 259 AD2d 318 ; Mecca v Shang, 258 AD2d 569 , 571).

1990As we not too long ago observed, "[t]he unique relationship between an attorney and client, founded in principle upon the elements of trust and confidence on the part of the client and of undivided loyalty and devotion on the part of the attorney, remains one of the most sensitive and confidential relationships in our society.” (Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v Glantz, 53 NY2d 553, 556 .) Because of the role attorneys play in the vindication of individual rights in our society, they are held to the highest standard of ethical behavior (Code of Professional Responsibility, Preamble; EC 6-5).

1990Yet without this relationship of trust and confidence an attorney is unable to fulfill this obligation to effectively represent clients by acting with competence and exercising proper care in the representation (Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v Glantz, 53 NY2d, at 556 , supra).

1989In Gallewski v Hentz & Co. ( 301 NY 164, 174 ) the court stated that "the Legislature may constitutionally revive a personal cause of action where the circumstances are exceptional and are such as to satisfy the court that serious injustice would result to plaintiffs not guilty of any fault if the intention of the Legislature were not effectuated.” It appears, however, that we have applied a less strict test in other cases, and have been satisfied if there was an apparent injustice which "calls for [a] remedy,” and which is "reasonable” and not "arbitrary.” (Robinson v Robins Dry Dock & Repair

1989In Gallewski v Hentz & Co. ( 301 NY 164, 174 ) the court stated that "the Legislature may constitutionally revive a personal cause of action where the circumstances are exceptional and are such as to satisfy the court that serious injustice would result to plaintiffs not guilty of any fault if the intention of the Legislature were not effectuated.” It appears, however, that we have applied a less strict test in other cases, and have been satisfied if there was an apparent injustice which "calls for [a] remedy,” and which is "reasonable” and not "arbitrary.” (Robinson v Robins Dry Dock & Repair

1985(Matter of Tara H, supra.) Criminal law provides some guidance in defining corroboration, even though the highest standard of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt” applies to those proceedings.

1983One who creates a nuisance through an inherently dangerous activity or use of an unreasonably dangerous product is absolutely liable for resulting damages, irregardless of fault, and despite adhering to the highest standard of care (Spano v Perini Corp., 25 NY2d 11 ).

1978Carey v Davis, 419 US 869 ) and the demands of the two interests which they must so scrupulously protect may at times pinion them between irreconcilably opposite duties.

1975It has been said before that police officers occupy a unique role in our society which requires the highest standard of integrity so that confidence in law enforcement may be maintained (see Matter of Halloran v Kirwan, 28 NY2d 689 , dissenting opn per Breitel, J., pp 693-694 and cases cited there).

1933(Durant v. Crowley, 197 App. Div. 540 ; affd., 234 N. Y. 581 .) The objections which criticize the investments as not proper, reasonable or prudent; as being made without regard to the time when objectant would come into ownership of the property, and as being in other respects negligent can be determined only after proof has been taken.

1933Supp. 1117, at p. 1120 ; affd., 150 App. Div. 902 ): “ In this court trustees should be held to the highest standard, not the lowest.” Even when the investment is made in a security authorized by law a fiduciary must be prepared to meet proof that in the particular instance the investment was improper, imprudent and unreasonable.

1933(Durant v. Crowley, 197 App. Div. 540 ; affd., 234 N. Y. 581 .) The objections which criticize the investments as not proper, reasonable or prudent; as being made without regard to the time when objectant would come into ownership of the property, and as being in other respects negligent can be determined only after proof has been taken.

1930(Matter of Knower, Foley, S., 121 Misc. 208 ; Matter of Jarvis, 110 id. 5.) But draftsmen of wills frequently throttle the enforcing hand of the courts by the terms of the will.

1922In this profession he is held to the highest standard of ethical and moral uprightness and fair dealing. * * * If he desires to go into business he must take the risk, if any is involved, and must see that his dealings as a business man are as upright as should be his dealings in his professional capacity/ ” In Matter of Neuman ( 169 App. Div. 638 ) we said: “ For a lawyer to advertise for business has long been recognized by the profession at large as grossly undignified and improper, and has been distinctly condemned by the 27th canon of the Code of Ethics adopted generally by the bar associ

1922While this Code has never been incorporated into our statutes, it has been so far recognized by the Supreme Court that it is now required that a copy of the Code shall be furnished to each lawyer upon his admission to the bar.” It is also provided by rule VIII of the Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Admission of Attorneys and Counselors-at-Law that “ Every applicant shall be given and required to pass a satisfactory examination in the canons of ethics adopted by the American Bar Association and by the New York State Bar Association.” In Matter of Schwarz ( 175 App. Div. 335 ) the responde

1901(Wood v. Amory, 105 N. Y. 278 .) Indeed, it may be said that the defendant seems to have been fully as alert and keen to satisfy its obligation for the smallest possible sum as the plaintiff has been to obtain the most, he could for it.