In re Foley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Foley

209 A.D.2d 24, 625 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4009

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 24 (In re Foley) 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 Foley, 209 A.D.2d 24, 625 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The above-named attorney was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 14, 1988 and maintains an office in Buffalo, New York. On December 22, 1994, an order was entered, on respondent’s default, by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida suspending respondent from the practice of [25]*25law for 91 days. Upon receipt of a certified copy of that order, this Court entered an order directing respondent to appear and show cause why an order of discipline should not be entered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22 (c). Respondent filed an affidavit and appeared in response to the show cause order.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22 (c), this Court may censure, suspend or disbar an attorney disciplined in a foreign jurisdiction unless the record before it discloses (1) that the procedure in the foreign jurisdiction deprived the attorney of due process; (2) that there was such an infirmity of proof of misconduct that the Court cannot accept the finding of the foreign court; or (3) that the imposition of discipline would be unjust. Neither the record of the Florida proceedings nor the affidavit submitted by respondent establishes any of those defenses.

Accordingly, respondent should be suspended for a period of 91 days and until further order of this Court.

Pine, J. P., Lawton, Balio, Davis and Boehm, JJ., concur.

Order of suspension entered.

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 the practice of law by this Court on January 14, 1988 and maintains an office in Buffalo, New York. On December 22, 1994, an order was entered, on respondent’s default, by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida suspending respondent from the practice of [25]*25law for 91 days. Upon receipt of a certified copy of that order, this Court entered an order directing respondent to appear and show cause why an order of discipline should not be entered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22 (c). Respondent filed an affidavit and appeared in response to the show cause order.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22 (c), this Court may censure, suspend or disbar an attorney disciplined in a foreign jurisdiction unless the record before it discloses (1) that the procedure in the foreign jurisdiction deprived the attorney of due process; (2) that there was such an infirmity of proof of misconduct that the Court cannot accept the finding of the foreign court; or (3) that the imposition of discipline would be unjust. Neither the record of the Florida proceedings nor the affidavit submitted by respondent establishes any of those defenses.

Accordingly, respondent should be suspended for a period of 91 days and until further order of this Court.

Pine, J. P., Lawton, Balio, Davis and Boehm, JJ., concur.

Order of suspension entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 24, 625 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-foley-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack