Home/New York Court of Appeals/In re Hopfl

In re Hopfl

400 N.E.2d 292, 48 N.Y.2d 859, 424 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2493
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 29, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 400 N.E.2d 292 (In re Hopfl) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Hopfl, 400 N.E.2d 292, 48 N.Y.2d 859, 424 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2493 (N.Y. 1979).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. Subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law mandates automatic disbarment upon conviction of a felony. It is clear that under this section as construed prior to its recent amendment (L 1979, ch 674), an attorney ceases to be a member of the Bar when convicted of a Federal felony, even one that has no New York analogue (Matter of Thies, 45 NY2d 865; Matter of Chu, 42 NY2d 490). Thus, upon his conviction under section 645 of title 15 of the United States Code, a felony under Federal law, appellant was automatically disbarred and it was proper for the Appellate Division at that time to strike his name from the roll of attorneys. The statutory sanction was rendered no less operative because the plea had been entered pursuant to North Carolina v Alford (400 US 25). Although appellant did not admit his guilt, nonetheless he stood convicted of a felony.

In light of this disposition, it is unnecessary to determine [861]*861whether the Federal offense has a New York counterpart and thus, we do not pass on that question which appropriately should.be left to the Appellate Division to consider anew upon proper application. Although the recent amendment to section 90 does not apply on this appeal, we note that appellant, if so advised, is free to make application to the Appellate Division for any relief that may be available.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Kasckarow v. Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders
106 A.D.3d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Kasckarow v. Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders
33 Misc. 3d 1028 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Claim of Howard v. Stature Electric, Inc.
72 A.D.3d 1167 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
MATTER OF SILMON v. Travis
741 N.E.2d 501 (New York Court of Appeals, 2000)
In re McLoughlin
265 A.D.2d 9 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Silmon v. Travis
266 A.D.2d 296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Miller
694 N.E.2d 61 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
People v. Miller
239 A.D.2d 787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re Novick
155 A.D.2d 22 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Feuereisen v. Axelrod
100 A.D.2d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Matter of Kerr
424 A.2d 94 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1980)
In Re Preston
616 P.2d 1 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
400 N.E.2d 292, 48 N.Y.2d 859, 424 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hopfl-ny-1979.