In re Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Smith

67 A.D.2d 356, 415 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10118

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

DecidedApril 19, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 356 (In re Smith) 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 Smith, 67 A.D.2d 356, 415 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice in the First Judicial Department on October 30, 1934. During the pendency of hearings before the Committee on Grievances on charges that respondent had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and [357]*357had failed to co-operate with the duly constituted Departmental Disciplinary Committee, a decree was issued by the Connecticut Court of Probate, District of New Milford, adjudging respondent incapable of managing his affairs by reason of physical and mental disability resulting from advanced age and physical illness, and appointing a conservator.

Following issuance of the decree, the hearings before the committee were suspended and petitioner brought this application to suspend respondent from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.16 (a). The rule provides that where an attorney "has been judicially declared incompetent or incapable of caring for his property or has been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, this court, upon proper proof of the fact, shall enter an order suspending such attorney from the practice of the law, effective immediately and for an indefinite period and until further order of this court.”

Accordingly, upon the foregoing, the application should be granted. Respondent should be suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately and for an indefinite period until further order of this court.

Birns, J. P., Fein, Sandler, Bloom and Lane, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for an indefinite period effective as of the date of the order of this court.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice in the First Judicial Department on October 30, 1934. During the pendency of hearings before the Committee on Grievances on charges that respondent had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and [357]*357had failed to co-operate with the duly constituted Departmental Disciplinary Committee, a decree was issued by the Connecticut Court of Probate, District of New Milford, adjudging respondent incapable of managing his affairs by reason of physical and mental disability resulting from advanced age and physical illness, and appointing a conservator.

Following issuance of the decree, the hearings before the committee were suspended and petitioner brought this application to suspend respondent from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.16 (a). The rule provides that where an attorney "has been judicially declared incompetent or incapable of caring for his property or has been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, this court, upon proper proof of the fact, shall enter an order suspending such attorney from the practice of the law, effective immediately and for an indefinite period and until further order of this court.”

Accordingly, upon the foregoing, the application should be granted. Respondent should be suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately and for an indefinite period until further order of this court.

Birns, J. P., Fein, Sandler, Bloom and Lane, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for an indefinite period effective as of the date of the order of this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 356, 415 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-smith-nyappdiv-1979.