In re Intemann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Intemann

193 A.D.2d 1020, 598 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5134

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

DecidedMay 20, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 1020 (In re Intemann) 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 Intemann, 193 A.D.2d 1020, 598 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By decision dated September 27, 1990, respondent was suspended by this Court for a period of two years, effective October 29, 1990 (see, Matter of Intemann, 165 AD2d 974) He now applies for reinstatement.

An examination of respondent’s application indicates that he has complied with the requirements of section 806.12 (b) of this Court’s rules regarding reinstatement (22 NYCRR). Petitioner has advised that there is no basis upon which to oppose respondent’s application. Accordingly, the application is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, effective immediately.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted and he is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

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

Per Curiam.

By decision dated September 27, 1990, respondent was suspended by this Court for a period of two years, effective October 29, 1990 (see, Matter of Intemann, 165 AD2d 974) He now applies for reinstatement.

An examination of respondent’s application indicates that he has complied with the requirements of section 806.12 (b) of this Court’s rules regarding reinstatement (22 NYCRR). Petitioner has advised that there is no basis upon which to oppose respondent’s application. Accordingly, the application is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, effective immediately.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted and he is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 1020, 598 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-intemann-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack