In re Conine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Conine

253 A.D.2d 999, 678 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9970

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 25, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was suspended from practice for a period of two years, effective April 1992 (Matter of Conine, 182 AD2d 913). He now applies for reinstatement to practice. Petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, opposes the application.

Because we conclude that respondent has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law (see, 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]), we deny the application for reinstatement.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Graffeo, 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 two years, effective April 1992 (Matter of Conine, 182 AD2d 913). He now applies for reinstatement to practice. Petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, opposes the application.

Because we conclude that respondent has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law (see, 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]), we deny the application for reinstatement.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is denied.

In re Conine, 253 A.D.2d 999, 678 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9970 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

253 A.D.2d 999 (In re Conine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related