In re Lajoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Lajoy

293 A.D.2d 866, 740 N.Y.S.2d 247, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3842

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

DecidedApril 16, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 866 (In re Lajoy) 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 Lajoy, 293 A.D.2d 866, 740 N.Y.S.2d 247, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By decision dated January 4, 2001, respondent was suspended by this Court for a period of one year (Matter of Lajoy, 279 AD2d 695).

Our examination of the papers submitted on this application indicates that respondent has complied with the provisions of the order of suspension and with this Court’s rules regarding the conduct of suspended attorneys (see, 22 NYCRR 806.9). He has also complied with the requirements of this Court’s rule regarding reinstatement (see, 22 NYCRR 806.12). Petitioner has advised that it does not oppose the application. The application is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, effective immediately.

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted and he is reinstated to practice 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 January 4, 2001, respondent was suspended by this Court for a period of one year (Matter of Lajoy, 279 AD2d 695).

Our examination of the papers submitted on this application indicates that respondent has complied with the provisions of the order of suspension and with this Court’s rules regarding the conduct of suspended attorneys (see, 22 NYCRR 806.9). He has also complied with the requirements of this Court’s rule regarding reinstatement (see, 22 NYCRR 806.12). Petitioner has advised that it does not oppose the application. The application is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, effective immediately.

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted and he is reinstated to practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 866, 740 N.Y.S.2d 247, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lajoy-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack