In re Cannon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Cannon

301 A.D.2d 742, 752 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 70

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

DecidedJanuary 2, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 742 (In re Cannon) 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 Cannon, 301 A.D.2d 742, 752 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 70 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was suspended from practice for a period of one year, effective November 28, 2000 (Matter of Cannon, 284 AD2d 721). He now applies for reinstatement. Petitioner opposes the application.

Because we conclude that respondent has not made the showing upon which an application for reinstatement may be granted (see 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]), we deny his application for reinstatement. We note, for example, that respondent has not submitted proper medical opinion that he has the psychological capacity to practice law and he still maintains open estate files and an escrow account with a balance due and owing to clients.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is denied.

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

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was suspended from practice for a period of one year, effective November 28, 2000 (Matter of Cannon, 284 AD2d 721). He now applies for reinstatement. Petitioner opposes the application.

Because we conclude that respondent has not made the showing upon which an application for reinstatement may be granted (see 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]), we deny his application for reinstatement. We note, for example, that respondent has not submitted proper medical opinion that he has the psychological capacity to practice law and he still maintains open estate files and an escrow account with a balance due and owing to clients.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 742, 752 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cannon-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack