In re Keeffe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Keeffe

71 A.D.2d 248, 422 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13465

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 4, 1979·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice at a term of the Appellate Division, First Department, on March 12, 1956.

On May 31, 1979, a judgment of conviction was rendered against respondent in the Supreme Court, County of New York, following his conviction by verdict of a jury of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree, in violation of section 155.35 of the Penal Law, a class D felony.

By virtue of subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary [249]*249Law, respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor of law of the State of New York at the moment of said conviction. (Matter of Mitchell, 40 NY2d 153; Matter of Ginsberg, 1 NY2d 144.)

The petition to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys should be granted.

Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sandler, Sullivan and Bloom, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York. [See 70 AD2d 293; 73 AD2d 514.]

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice at a term of the Appellate Division, First Department, on March 12, 1956.

On May 31, 1979, a judgment of conviction was rendered against respondent in the Supreme Court, County of New York, following his conviction by verdict of a jury of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree, in violation of section 155.35 of the Penal Law, a class D felony.

By virtue of subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary [249]*249Law, respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor of law of the State of New York at the moment of said conviction. (Matter of Mitchell, 40 NY2d 153; Matter of Ginsberg, 1 NY2d 144.)

The petition to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys should be granted.

Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sandler, Sullivan and Bloom, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York. [See 70 AD2d 293; 73 AD2d 514.]

In re Keeffe, 71 A.D.2d 248, 422 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

71 A.D.2d 248 (In re Keeffe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related