In re Weinstat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Weinstat

128 A.D.2d 90, 515 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43527

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

DecidedMay 19, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 90 (In re Weinstat) 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 Weinstat, 128 A.D.2d 90, 515 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) for the First Judicial Department has moved to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b).

This court admitted respondent to practice on November 8, 1982.

[91]*91Respondent was convicted, upon a plea of guilty, in the Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. Atlas, J.), entered November 6, 1985, of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.16), which is a class C felony.

A certified copy of the disposition has been presented to this court (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [b]). Upon her conviction, respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [a]; see, Matter of Dizak, 93 AD2d 680, 681-682 [1st Dept 1983]).

Accordingly, the petition of the DDC should be granted, and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Milonas and Wallach, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective May 19, 1987.

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