In re Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Roth

11 A.D.2d 77, 201 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8866

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

DecidedJune 30, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 77 (In re Roth) 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 Roth, 11 A.D.2d 77, 201 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this disciplinary proceeding the respondent was admitted to practice on April 17, 1940, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department. In the course of his employment as an authorization officer of the Veterans’ Administration, New York, New York, he pleaded guilty to the violation of section 202 of title 18 of the United States Code, which is a felony both under Federal and New York State law. In consequence of such conviction and pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, the respondent has ceased to be an attorney and counsellor at law or to be competent to practice law in this State.

Accordingly, the respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law.

Botein, P, J., Breitel, McNally and Stevens, JJ., concur.

Bespondent disbarred.

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

Per Curiam.

In this disciplinary proceeding the respondent was admitted to practice on April 17, 1940, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department. In the course of his employment as an authorization officer of the Veterans’ Administration, New York, New York, he pleaded guilty to the violation of section 202 of title 18 of the United States Code, which is a felony both under Federal and New York State law. In consequence of such conviction and pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, the respondent has ceased to be an attorney and counsellor at law or to be competent to practice law in this State.

Accordingly, the respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law.

Botein, P, J., Breitel, McNally and Stevens, JJ., concur.

Bespondent disbarred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 77, 201 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-roth-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack