In re Cronin

280 A.D.2d 874, 720 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1881
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 20, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 874 (In re Cronin) 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 Cronin, 280 A.D.2d 874, 720 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1985 and resides in the Village of Johnson City, Broome County.

By order entered October 31, 2000, this Court directed respondent to appear for examination before petitioner regarding inquiries petitioner had forwarded to respondent and to which she had not replied. Respondent failed to appear in Albany on November 21, 2000, as directed. Petitioner now moves to suspend respondent from practice pending her compliance with the order. Respondent has not formally replied to the motion.

The motion is granted and respondent is suspended from [875]*875practice pending her compliance with the order (see, e.g., Matter of Griffin, 264 AD2d 534).

Cardona, P. J., Mercare, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from practice, effective immediately and until further order of this Court, pending her compliance with this Court’s order entered October 31, 2000; and it is further ordered that, for the period of her suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; she is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rule (see, 22 NYCRR 806.9) regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys.

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

Related

In re Cronin
27 A.D.3d 829 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
280 A.D.2d 874, 720 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cronin-nyappdiv-2001.