In re Rosen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rosen

136 A.D.2d 138, 526 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3232

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 A.D.2d 138 (In re Rosen) 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 Rosen, 136 A.D.2d 138, 526 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Louis Rosen was admitted to practice as an [139]*139attorney in the State of New York by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on March 27, 1957. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department. Respondent submits an affidavit of resignation pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.11. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee recommends that this court accept the resignation and enter an order striking the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys.'

In his affidavit of resignation, respondent concedes that he could not successfully defend himself on the merits against the charge that, while suspended from practice pursuant to an order of this court dated February 2, 1984, he continued to maintain an office for the practice of law and, in fact, continued to practice law after said suspension.

Under the circumstances, we accept respondent’s resignation and order that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys effective immediately. Respondent is directed to comply with the provisions of 22 NYCRR 603.13 regulating the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys, and the Departmental Disciplinary Committee is appointed to inventory respondent’s files.

Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Milonas, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ., concur.

Resignation accepted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law effective immediately.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Louis Rosen was admitted to practice as an [139]*139attorney in the State of New York by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on March 27, 1957. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department. Respondent submits an affidavit of resignation pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.11. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee recommends that this court accept the resignation and enter an order striking the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys.'

In his affidavit of resignation, respondent concedes that he could not successfully defend himself on the merits against the charge that, while suspended from practice pursuant to an order of this court dated February 2, 1984, he continued to maintain an office for the practice of law and, in fact, continued to practice law after said suspension.

Under the circumstances, we accept respondent’s resignation and order that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys effective immediately. Respondent is directed to comply with the provisions of 22 NYCRR 603.13 regulating the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys, and the Departmental Disciplinary Committee is appointed to inventory respondent’s files.

Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Milonas, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ., concur.

Resignation accepted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law effective immediately.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.2d 138, 526 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosen-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack