In re Stein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Stein

54 A.D.3d 506, 862 N.Y.S.2d 299

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

DecidedAugust 14, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.3d 506 (In re Stein) 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 Stein, 54 A.D.3d 506, 862 N.Y.S.2d 299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2002. He was previously admitted to the Tennessee bar in 1963 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Memphis, Tennessee.

By order dated April 11, 2008, the Supreme Court of Tennessee accepted respondent’s conditional guilty plea and censured him for failing to challenge the state’s case or present evidence on behalf of his client at a juvenile court hearing. Petitioner now moves for an order imposing reciprocal discipline upon respondent (see 22 NYCRR 806.19).

Respondent has submitted papers in opposition which do not establish any of the available defenses to reciprocal discipline (see 22 NYCRR 806.19 [d]). We therefore grant petitioner’s motion and further conclude that respondent should be reciprocally censured.

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is censured.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2002. He was previously admitted to the Tennessee bar in 1963 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Memphis, Tennessee.

By order dated April 11, 2008, the Supreme Court of Tennessee accepted respondent’s conditional guilty plea and censured him for failing to challenge the state’s case or present evidence on behalf of his client at a juvenile court hearing. Petitioner now moves for an order imposing reciprocal discipline upon respondent (see 22 NYCRR 806.19).

Respondent has submitted papers in opposition which do not establish any of the available defenses to reciprocal discipline (see 22 NYCRR 806.19 [d]). We therefore grant petitioner’s motion and further conclude that respondent should be reciprocally censured.

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.3d 506, 862 N.Y.S.2d 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stein-nyappdiv-2008.