In re Haas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Haas

308 A.D.2d 656, 764 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9775

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 656 (In re Haas) 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 Haas, 308 A.D.2d 656, 764 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1985. He currently resides in Texas. By decision dated May 5, 1997, this Court suspended respondent from practice pending his compliance with an order of the Court directing him to appear before petitioner to be examined under oath and to produce certain records and documents (Matter of Haas, 239 AD2d 658 [1997]). 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, we deny his application for reinstatement {see 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, 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 admitted to practice by this Court in 1985. He currently resides in Texas. By decision dated May 5, 1997, this Court suspended respondent from practice pending his compliance with an order of the Court directing him to appear before petitioner to be examined under oath and to produce certain records and documents (Matter of Haas, 239 AD2d 658 [1997]). 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, we deny his application for reinstatement {see 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 656, 764 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-haas-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack