In re Bartholomew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Bartholomew

234 A.D.2d 887, 652 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13136

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 1996·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By decision dated July 9,1993, respondent was suspended by this Court for a period of six months (Matter of Bartholomew, 195 AD2d 753). He now applies for reinstatement.

Our examination of the papers submitted on this application indicates that respondent has complied with the provisions of the order of suspension and with section 806.9 (22 NYCRR 806.9) of this Court’s rules regarding the conduct of suspended lawyers and has complied with the requirements of section 806.12 (22 NYCRR 806.12) regarding reinstatement. Petitioner has advised, that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly, the application is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, effective immediately.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted and he 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.

By decision dated July 9,1993, respondent was suspended by this Court for a period of six months (Matter of Bartholomew, 195 AD2d 753). He now applies for reinstatement.

Our examination of the papers submitted on this application indicates that respondent has complied with the provisions of the order of suspension and with section 806.9 (22 NYCRR 806.9) of this Court’s rules regarding the conduct of suspended lawyers and has complied with the requirements of section 806.12 (22 NYCRR 806.12) regarding reinstatement. Petitioner has advised, that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly, the application is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, effective immediately.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted and he is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

In re Bartholomew, 234 A.D.2d 887, 652 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

234 A.D.2d 887 (In re Bartholomew) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related