In re Anonymous

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Anonymous

212 A.D.2d 1067, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1022

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 3, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 1067 (In re Anonymous) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Anonymous, 212 A.D.2d 1067, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Application denied with leave to renew. Memorandum: We find that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he currently possesses the character and fitness to practice law required by Judiciary Law § 90 (1) (a) (see, Matter of Cassidy, 268 App Div 282, affd 296 NY 926).

Petitioner raised his diagnosed schizophrenia and the severe disabling nature of his illness to explain his default on a student loan, his inability to work for a four-year period and his two prior arrests. Inasmuch as petitioner has attempted to excuse his conduct based upon a mental illness, petitioner is required to demonstrate that his illness will not impair his current ability to perform the responsibilities of an attorney and counselor at law. Petitioner has failed to meet that burden. The record contains numerous inconsistent and conflicting statements regarding the prognosis of petitioner, his need for medication and his willingness to adhere to a prescribed regimen of medication.

Petitioner may renew his application for admission upon submission of appropriate medical proof on the issue of his current prognosis and course of treatment. Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Fallon and Callahan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Application denied with leave to renew. Memorandum: We find that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he currently possesses the character and fitness to practice law required by Judiciary Law § 90 (1) (a) (see, Matter of Cassidy, 268 App Div 282, affd 296 NY 926).

Petitioner raised his diagnosed schizophrenia and the severe disabling nature of his illness to explain his default on a student loan, his inability to work for a four-year period and his two prior arrests. Inasmuch as petitioner has attempted to excuse his conduct based upon a mental illness, petitioner is required to demonstrate that his illness will not impair his current ability to perform the responsibilities of an attorney and counselor at law. Petitioner has failed to meet that burden. The record contains numerous inconsistent and conflicting statements regarding the prognosis of petitioner, his need for medication and his willingness to adhere to a prescribed regimen of medication.

Petitioner may renew his application for admission upon submission of appropriate medical proof on the issue of his current prognosis and course of treatment. Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Fallon and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 1067, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-anonymous-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack