In re Eisenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Eisenberg

66 A.D.2d 497, 413 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10046

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 497 (In re Eisenberg) 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 Eisenberg, 66 A.D.2d 497, 413 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Petitioner moves for an order pursuant to section 90 of the Judiciary Law striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys on the ground that respondent is subject to auto[498]*498matic disbarment following a Federal felony conviction. On July 13, 1978, respondent was convicted following trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiring to commit offenses against the United States and unlawfully transporting counterfeit securities in interstate commerce consisting of 90 official checks in violation of sections 2 and 2314 of title 18 of the United States Code. Respondent’s conviction of a crime amounting to a Federal felony carries with it automatic disbarment pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law (Matter of Thies, 45 NY2d 865; Matter of Chu, 42 NY2d 490). Contrary to respondent’s contention, a hearing is unnecessary. Nor is it at all relevant that respondent has appealed the Federal conviction. In the event of reversal of that conviction, respondent is not without available remedy to move upon proper papers for his reinstatement to the Bar.

Accordingly, the application by petitioner for an order directing respondent’s disbarment should be granted and the clerk directed to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York.

Birns, J. P., Evans, Fein, Sullivan and Bloom, JJ., concur.

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

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Petitioner moves for an order pursuant to section 90 of the Judiciary Law striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys on the ground that respondent is subject to auto[498]*498matic disbarment following a Federal felony conviction. On July 13, 1978, respondent was convicted following trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiring to commit offenses against the United States and unlawfully transporting counterfeit securities in interstate commerce consisting of 90 official checks in violation of sections 2 and 2314 of title 18 of the United States Code. Respondent’s conviction of a crime amounting to a Federal felony carries with it automatic disbarment pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law (Matter of Thies, 45 NY2d 865; Matter of Chu, 42 NY2d 490). Contrary to respondent’s contention, a hearing is unnecessary. Nor is it at all relevant that respondent has appealed the Federal conviction. In the event of reversal of that conviction, respondent is not without available remedy to move upon proper papers for his reinstatement to the Bar.

Accordingly, the application by petitioner for an order directing respondent’s disbarment should be granted and the clerk directed to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York.

Birns, J. P., Evans, Fein, Sullivan and Bloom, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 497, 413 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-eisenberg-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack