In re Mordkofsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Mordkofsky

250 A.D.2d 999, 673 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5855

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

DecidedMay 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 999 (In re Mordkofsky) 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 Mordkofsky, 250 A.D.2d 999, 673 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, First Department, in 1955. He was suspended for a period of six months by this Court on October 25, 1996 (Matter of Mordkofsky, 232 AD2d 863, Iv denied 89 NY2d 817, appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 983). On June 26, 1997, respondent’s motion for expedited reinstatement was denied and his pending application for reinstatement was referred to petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, for investigation and report.

Based on petitioner’s report and the papers submitted by respondent, and especially noting his refusal to cooperate with petitioner’s investigation of his application for reinstatement, we find that respondent has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that he has complied with the provisions of the order suspending him and that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law (see, 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]). We therefore deny his application for reinstatement.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 the Appellate Division, First Department, in 1955. He was suspended for a period of six months by this Court on October 25, 1996 (Matter of Mordkofsky, 232 AD2d 863, Iv denied 89 NY2d 817, appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 983). On June 26, 1997, respondent’s motion for expedited reinstatement was denied and his pending application for reinstatement was referred to petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, for investigation and report.

Based on petitioner’s report and the papers submitted by respondent, and especially noting his refusal to cooperate with petitioner’s investigation of his application for reinstatement, we find that respondent has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that he has complied with the provisions of the order suspending him and that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law (see, 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]). We therefore deny his application for reinstatement.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 999, 673 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mordkofsky-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack