In re Schultz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Schultz

38 A.D.2d 838, 331 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5398

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 838 (In re Schultz) 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 Schultz, 38 A.D.2d 838, 331 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion by respondent to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the issues have become academic in that his term of office has expired and he no longer holds the judicial position in question. Motion denied. However, on the court’s own motion, the instant removal proceeding is hereby closed. This court ordered [839]*839a hearing upon stated charges preferred against respondent following an investigation and report conducted pursuant to a prior order. Because of the expiration of respondent’s term of judicial office, a continuation of this removal proceeding and a disposition thereof on the merits would serve no constructive purpose. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

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

Motion by respondent to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the issues have become academic in that his term of office has expired and he no longer holds the judicial position in question. Motion denied. However, on the court’s own motion, the instant removal proceeding is hereby closed. This court ordered [839]*839a hearing upon stated charges preferred against respondent following an investigation and report conducted pursuant to a prior order. Because of the expiration of respondent’s term of judicial office, a continuation of this removal proceeding and a disposition thereof on the merits would serve no constructive purpose. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 838, 331 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-schultz-nyappdiv-1972.