In re Krouner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Krouner

114 A.D.3d 993, 979 N.Y.S.2d 857

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.3d 993 (In re Krouner) 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 Krouner, 114 A.D.3d 993, 979 N.Y.S.2d 857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1973. He maintained an office for the practice of law in the City of Albany. He presently resides in San Diego, California.

On February 20, 2003, respondent pleaded guilty to three felonies in Supreme Court in Albany County and, accordingly, this Court entered an order of disbarment on May 23, 2003 (Matter of Krouner, 305 AD2d 932 [2003]). Respondent now reapplies for reinstatement (see Matter of Krouner, 84 AD3d 1585 [2011]).

Upon review of the submissions and consideration of all the circumstances, we conclude that respondent has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law. Accordingly, we deny his current application for reinstatement.

Rose, J.E, Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is denied.

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

Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1973. He maintained an office for the practice of law in the City of Albany. He presently resides in San Diego, California.

On February 20, 2003, respondent pleaded guilty to three felonies in Supreme Court in Albany County and, accordingly, this Court entered an order of disbarment on May 23, 2003 (Matter of Krouner, 305 AD2d 932 [2003]). Respondent now reapplies for reinstatement (see Matter of Krouner, 84 AD3d 1585 [2011]).

Upon review of the submissions and consideration of all the circumstances, we conclude that respondent has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law. Accordingly, we deny his current application for reinstatement.

Rose, J.E, Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.3d 993, 979 N.Y.S.2d 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-krouner-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack