In re Lotsof

New York Court of Appeals

In re Lotsof

316 N.E.2d 879, 34 N.Y.2d 952, 359 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1382

DecidedJuly 15, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 316 N.E.2d 879 (In re Lotsof) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Lotsof, 316 N.E.2d 879, 34 N.Y.2d 952, 359 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1382 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the order of the Appellate Division in the absence of any proof in the record that the applicant was an actual resident of the State of New York at the time of filing his application for admission to practice (CPLR 9406, subd. 3). In that view of the matter we do not reach the question of the validity of a durational residence requirement.

We take this opportunity to invite attention to what appears to us to be the high desirability of legislative reconsideration of the broad basis of eligibility for admission to the Bar, including requirements as to both residency and employment (cf. L. 1974, ch. 75).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur in Per Curiam opinion.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

We affirm the order of the Appellate Division in the absence of any proof in the record that the applicant was an actual resident of the State of New York at the time of filing his application for admission to practice (CPLR 9406, subd. 3). In that view of the matter we do not reach the question of the validity of a durational residence requirement.

We take this opportunity to invite attention to what appears to us to be the high desirability of legislative reconsideration of the broad basis of eligibility for admission to the Bar, including requirements as to both residency and employment (cf. L. 1974, ch. 75).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur in Per Curiam opinion.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 N.E.2d 879, 34 N.Y.2d 952, 359 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lotsof-ny-1974.