In re Raphael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Raphael

243 A.D.2d 811, 665 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10297

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 811 (In re Raphael) 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 Raphael, 243 A.D.2d 811, 665 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By decision dated June 22, 1995, respondent was suspended by this Court for a period of eighteen months, effective August 22, 1995 (see, Matter of Raphael, 216 AD2d 788). A prior application by respondent for reinstatement was denied by decision dated June 26, 1997. Respondent now reapplies for reinstatement to practice.

An examination of the papers submitted on this reapplication indicates that respondent has complied with the provisions of the order of suspension and with section 806.9 (22 NYCRR 806.9) of this Court’s rules regarding the conduct of suspended lawyers and has complied with the requirements of section 806.12 (22 NYCRR 806.12) regarding reinstatement. Petitioner has advised that there is no basis upon which to oppose respondent’s reapplication. Accordingly, the reapplication is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, effective immediately.

[812]*812Cardona, P. J., Her cure, Crew III, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s reapplication is granted and he is reinstated 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 June 22, 1995, respondent was suspended by this Court for a period of eighteen months, effective August 22, 1995 (see, Matter of Raphael, 216 AD2d 788). A prior application by respondent for reinstatement was denied by decision dated June 26, 1997. Respondent now reapplies for reinstatement to practice.

An examination of the papers submitted on this reapplication indicates that respondent has complied with the provisions of the order of suspension and with section 806.9 (22 NYCRR 806.9) of this Court’s rules regarding the conduct of suspended lawyers and has complied with the requirements of section 806.12 (22 NYCRR 806.12) regarding reinstatement. Petitioner has advised that there is no basis upon which to oppose respondent’s reapplication. Accordingly, the reapplication is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, effective immediately.

[812]*812Cardona, P. J., Her cure, Crew III, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s reapplication is granted and he is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 811, 665 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-raphael-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack