In re Lerch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Lerch

254 A.D. 770, 4 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7544

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

DecidedMay 27, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 770 (In re Lerch) 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 Lerch, 254 A.D. 770, 4 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

—• Application denied. Applicant was admitted to practice by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in 1924. He represents that he has practiced there for more than the five years required by rule 2, subdivision 1, of the Rules of the Court of Appeals for Admission of Attorneys and Counsellors at Law (admission without State Bar examination). But applicant, when admitted and while practicing in the District of Columbia, was a resident of the State of New York; in fact has been such resident since 1912. A resident of this State may not be admitted without examination under the circumstances stated. (Matter of Botolo, 247 App. Div. 724.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ.

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

—• Application denied. Applicant was admitted to practice by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in 1924. He represents that he has practiced there for more than the five years required by rule 2, subdivision 1, of the Rules of the Court of Appeals for Admission of Attorneys and Counsellors at Law (admission without State Bar examination). But applicant, when admitted and while practicing in the District of Columbia, was a resident of the State of New York; in fact has been such resident since 1912. A resident of this State may not be admitted without examination under the circumstances stated. (Matter of Botolo, 247 App. Div. 724.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 770, 4 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lerch-nyappdiv-1938.