In re Griffin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Griffin

288 A.D.2d 747, 734 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11512

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 21, 2001·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was suspended from practice for a period of one year, nunc pro tunc [748] to August 11, 1999 (Matter of Griffin, 278 AD2d 581). He now applies for reinstatement. Petitioner opposes the application.

Because we conclude that respondent has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law (see, 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]), we deny his application for reinstatement.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is denied.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was suspended from practice for a period of one year, nunc pro tunc [748] to August 11, 1999 (Matter of Griffin, 278 AD2d 581). He now applies for reinstatement. Petitioner opposes the application.

Because we conclude that respondent has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law (see, 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]), we deny his application for reinstatement.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is denied.

In re Griffin, 288 A.D.2d 747, 734 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

288 A.D.2d 747 (In re Griffin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related