In re Spevack

New York Court of Appeals

In re Spevack

214 N.E.2d 373, 17 N.Y.2d 490, 267 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1664

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 6, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 214 N.E.2d 373 (In re Spevack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Spevack, 214 N.E.2d 373, 17 N.Y.2d 490, 267 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1664 (N.Y. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding ■thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Appellant contended that his disbarment, based upon his refusal to produce any of the records specified in the subpoena duces tecum, duly issued in a judicial inquiry into professional conduct, and based upon his prior refusal to answer any questions which might be asked relating thereto, violated his constitutional privilege against self incrimination and his constitutional right to due process of law. The Court of Appeals held there was no violation of any of appellant’s constitutional rights. [¡See 16 N Y 2d 1048.]

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

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding ■thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Appellant contended that his disbarment, based upon his refusal to produce any of the records specified in the subpoena duces tecum, duly issued in a judicial inquiry into professional conduct, and based upon his prior refusal to answer any questions which might be asked relating thereto, violated his constitutional privilege against self incrimination and his constitutional right to due process of law. The Court of Appeals held there was no violation of any of appellant’s constitutional rights. [¡See 16 N Y 2d 1048.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 N.E.2d 373, 17 N.Y.2d 490, 267 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-spevack-ny-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack