In re Hersch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Hersch

67 A.D.2d 569, 416 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10505

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

DecidedMay 10, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 569 (In re Hersch) 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 Hersch, 67 A.D.2d 569, 416 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the Second Department in 1966. On or about April 19, 1976, respondent was convicted in the Unitéd States District Court, Southern District, New York, by plea of guilty, of the felony of using the mail in causing and facilitating a Federal felony (US Code, tit 21, §§ 812, 952, subd [a]; § 960, subd [a], par [a], and subd [b], par [1]; § 843, subd [b]; US Code, tit 18, § 2), and sentenced thereon to pay a fine of $5,000 and two years on probation, resulting in his automatic disbarment (Judiciary Law, § 90, subd 4; Matter of Chu, 42 NY2d 490; Matter of [570]*570Thies, 45 NY2d 865). The Departmental Disciplinary Committee moves accordingly to strike his name from the roll of attorneys. The application is granted.

Respondent’s name should be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Lane, Markewich and Ross, 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.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the Second Department in 1966. On or about April 19, 1976, respondent was convicted in the Unitéd States District Court, Southern District, New York, by plea of guilty, of the felony of using the mail in causing and facilitating a Federal felony (US Code, tit 21, §§ 812, 952, subd [a]; § 960, subd [a], par [a], and subd [b], par [1]; § 843, subd [b]; US Code, tit 18, § 2), and sentenced thereon to pay a fine of $5,000 and two years on probation, resulting in his automatic disbarment (Judiciary Law, § 90, subd 4; Matter of Chu, 42 NY2d 490; Matter of [570]*570Thies, 45 NY2d 865). The Departmental Disciplinary Committee moves accordingly to strike his name from the roll of attorneys. The application is granted.

Respondent’s name should be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Lane, Markewich and Ross, 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)

67 A.D.2d 569, 416 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hersch-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack