In re Ehrlich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ehrlich

146 A.D.2d 428, 541 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6551

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 18, 1989·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice law in this State on May 2, 1952, in the Second Judicial Department. At all relevant times herein, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

On January 12, 1989, defendant pleaded guilty to the felony of bribe receiving in the second degree in the Supreme Court, New York County. A certificate evidencing this conviction has been presented to the court. (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [b].)

Although not yet sentenced, respondent ceased to be an [429]*429attorney and counselor-at-law upon his conviction of a felony. (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [a]; Matter of Geller, 97 AD2d 306.)

Accordingly, the petition should be granted and respondent’s name should be stricken from the roll of attorneys forthwith.

Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York forthwith.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice law in this State on May 2, 1952, in the Second Judicial Department. At all relevant times herein, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

On January 12, 1989, defendant pleaded guilty to the felony of bribe receiving in the second degree in the Supreme Court, New York County. A certificate evidencing this conviction has been presented to the court. (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [b].)

Although not yet sentenced, respondent ceased to be an [429]*429attorney and counselor-at-law upon his conviction of a felony. (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [a]; Matter of Geller, 97 AD2d 306.)

Accordingly, the petition should be granted and respondent’s name should be stricken from the roll of attorneys forthwith.

Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York forthwith.

In re Ehrlich, 146 A.D.2d 428, 541 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

146 A.D.2d 428 (In re Ehrlich) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related