In re Daigle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Daigle

185 A.D.2d 21, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15066

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 185 A.D.2d 21 (In re Daigle) 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 Daigle, 185 A.D.2d 21, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The above-named attorney was admitted to practice by this Court on June 25, 1981 and is currently in good standing. He has submitted an affidavit requesting that this Court accept his resignation from the practice of law in New York State. His affidavit states that he has relocated to the State of Maine where he now practices law, that he has no intention of returning to practice in this State and that he is resigning [22]*22because he no longer wishes to maintain his attorney registration in New York. There are currently no complaints pending against him.

Accordingly, we grant the application and direct that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Denman, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ., concur.

Resignation accepted and name stricken from the roll of attorneys.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The above-named attorney was admitted to practice by this Court on June 25, 1981 and is currently in good standing. He has submitted an affidavit requesting that this Court accept his resignation from the practice of law in New York State. His affidavit states that he has relocated to the State of Maine where he now practices law, that he has no intention of returning to practice in this State and that he is resigning [22]*22because he no longer wishes to maintain his attorney registration in New York. There are currently no complaints pending against him.

Accordingly, we grant the application and direct that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Denman, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ., concur.

Resignation accepted and name stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 21, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daigle-nyappdiv-1992.