In re Nikoloric

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Nikoloric

59 A.D.2d 147, 398 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13277

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 147 (In re Nikoloric) 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 Nikoloric, 59 A.D.2d 147, 398 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The respondent, Leonard Nikoloric, was admitted to practice as an attorney in New York State on June 27, 1947 in the First Department. He was convicted after a trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of, inter alia, the felony of transportation of stolen securities valued in excess of $5,000 (US Code, tit 18, § 2314), which crime would also constitute a felony under New York State law (Penal Law, § 165.50).

Under the circumstances, the present application to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys should be granted (Judiciary Law, § 90, subd 4).

Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Evans, Lane and Markewich, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York.

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

Per Curiam.

The respondent, Leonard Nikoloric, was admitted to practice as an attorney in New York State on June 27, 1947 in the First Department. He was convicted after a trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of, inter alia, the felony of transportation of stolen securities valued in excess of $5,000 (US Code, tit 18, § 2314), which crime would also constitute a felony under New York State law (Penal Law, § 165.50).

Under the circumstances, the present application to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys should be granted (Judiciary Law, § 90, subd 4).

Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Evans, Lane and Markewich, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 147, 398 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nikoloric-nyappdiv-1977.