In re Breslow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Breslow

23 A.D.2d 100, 258 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4337

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

DecidedApril 30, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 100 (In re Breslow) 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 Breslow, 23 A.D.2d 100, 258 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this disciplinary proceeding the respondent was admitted to practice on January 9, 1928 at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department. On November 15,1963 he was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of a violation of section 1826 of the Penal Law, a felony under New York State law. In consequence of such conviction, and pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, the respondent has ceased to be an attorney and counselor at law or to be competent to practice law in this State. Accordingly, the respondent should ibe disbarred from the practice of law (Matter of Ginsberg, 1 N Y 2d 144).

Botein, P. J., Bkeitel, McNally, Stevens and Eageb, JJ., concur.

Respondent struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law of the State of New York.

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

Per Curiam.

In this disciplinary proceeding the respondent was admitted to practice on January 9, 1928 at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department. On November 15,1963 he was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of a violation of section 1826 of the Penal Law, a felony under New York State law. In consequence of such conviction, and pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, the respondent has ceased to be an attorney and counselor at law or to be competent to practice law in this State. Accordingly, the respondent should ibe disbarred from the practice of law (Matter of Ginsberg, 1 N Y 2d 144).

Botein, P. J., Bkeitel, McNally, Stevens and Eageb, JJ., concur.

Respondent struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law of the State of New York.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 100, 258 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-breslow-nyappdiv-1965.