In re Werbalowsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Werbalowsky

287 A.D.2d 942, 734 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10013

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

DecidedOctober 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 942 (In re Werbalowsky) 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 Werbalowsky, 287 A.D.2d 942, 734 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in 1972. He maintained a law office in the City of Kingston, Ulster County.

In view of respondent’s consent and his current hospitalization for mental illness, we grant petitioner’s motion for an order suspending respondent from practice for mental incapacity [943]*943indefinitely and until further order of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 806.10 [a]).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from practice indefinitely and until further order of this Court, effective immediately; and it is further ordered that, for the period of his suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; he is forbidden to appear as an attorney and counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys (see, 22 NYCRR 806.9).

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

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in 1972. He maintained a law office in the City of Kingston, Ulster County.

In view of respondent’s consent and his current hospitalization for mental illness, we grant petitioner’s motion for an order suspending respondent from practice for mental incapacity [943]*943indefinitely and until further order of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 806.10 [a]).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from practice indefinitely and until further order of this Court, effective immediately; and it is further ordered that, for the period of his suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; he is forbidden to appear as an attorney and counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys (see, 22 NYCRR 806.9).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 942, 734 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-werbalowsky-nyappdiv-2001.