In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a

47 A.D.3d 1060, 848 N.Y.S.2d 549

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.3d 1060 (In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a) 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 Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 47 A.D.3d 1060, 848 N.Y.S.2d 549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1994, was suspended by this Court’s order dated June 7, 1999 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (262 AD2d 702 [1999]). Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judi[1061]*1061ciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts {see 22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application. Respondent’s application is granted and he is ordered reinstated, effective immediately. Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ. concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1994, was suspended by this Court’s order dated June 7, 1999 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (262 AD2d 702 [1999]). Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judi[1061]*1061ciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts {see 22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application. Respondent’s application is granted and he is ordered reinstated, effective immediately. Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ. concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 1060, 848 N.Y.S.2d 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-attorneys-in-violation-of-judiciary-law-468-a-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack