In re Kelleher

90 A.D.3d 1229, 933 N.Y.2d 909

This text of 90 A.D.3d 1229 (In re Kelleher) 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 Kelleher, 90 A.D.3d 1229, 933 N.Y.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent has not answered or otherwise replied to a petition of charges or to petitioner’s instant motion for a default judgment, although both were duly served upon him. In support of its motion, petitioner has filed proof by affidavit of the facts constituting the alleged misconduct. Under the circumstances, respondent is deemed to have admitted the charges and we grant petitioner’s motion (see e.g. Matter of Rothenberg, 15 AD3d 772 [2005]). Further, based on such admission and the [1230]*1230proof submitted by petitioner, we find respondent guilty of the charged misconduct.

In violation of the disciplinary rules,

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

Related

In re Rothenberg
15 A.D.3d 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re Macalino
37 A.D.3d 951 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 A.D.3d 1229, 933 N.Y.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kelleher-nyappdiv-2011.