In re Rosenbloom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rosenbloom

247 A.D. 725

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D. 725 (In re Rosenbloom) 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 Rosenbloom, 247 A.D. 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Assuming the New Jersey rule limits the practice of the law in that State to residents, it is indicated that appEcant misunderstood the meaning of the rule. He says that during the last five months of his “ actual practice ” in New Jersey, court matters were handled for him, by his brother. However, it appearing that, while a resident of this State, he practiced law in New Jersey during five months which were at the end of the five-year period required for practice in the sister State, his application must be denied for the same reason that it is denied in Matter of Rotolo [ante, p. 724], decided herewith. Application denied. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ.

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

Assuming the New Jersey rule limits the practice of the law in that State to residents, it is indicated that appEcant misunderstood the meaning of the rule. He says that during the last five months of his “ actual practice ” in New Jersey, court matters were handled for him, by his brother. However, it appearing that, while a resident of this State, he practiced law in New Jersey during five months which were at the end of the five-year period required for practice in the sister State, his application must be denied for the same reason that it is denied in Matter of Rotolo [ante, p. 724], decided herewith. Application denied. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D. 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosenbloom-nyappdiv-1936.