In re Freeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Freeman

134 A.D.2d 726, 520 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50912

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 12, 1987·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner moves for an order striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys, in accordance with Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b), on the ground that respondent has been convicted of a felony.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this court in 1956. On October 5, 1987, he was convicted in the County Court of Tompkins County of the crime of attempted sexual abuse, first degree, a class E felony (Penal Law §§ 130.65, 110.05). He was sentenced to a term of conditional discharge for a period of three years and a surcharge of $100.

Respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State upon his conviction of a felony (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [a]) and the instant application to strike his name from the roll of attorneys is merely a formality (Matter of Ginsberg, 1 NY2d 144; Matter of Leyden, 96 AD2d 1124).

Motion granted and respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Casey and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Petitioner moves for an order striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys, in accordance with Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b), on the ground that respondent has been convicted of a felony.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this court in 1956. On October 5, 1987, he was convicted in the County Court of Tompkins County of the crime of attempted sexual abuse, first degree, a class E felony (Penal Law §§ 130.65, 110.05). He was sentenced to a term of conditional discharge for a period of three years and a surcharge of $100.

Respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State upon his conviction of a felony (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [a]) and the instant application to strike his name from the roll of attorneys is merely a formality (Matter of Ginsberg, 1 NY2d 144; Matter of Leyden, 96 AD2d 1124).

Motion granted and respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Casey and Levine, JJ., concur.

In re Freeman, 134 A.D.2d 726, 520 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

134 A.D.2d 726 (In re Freeman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related