In re Wheatley

89 A.D.3d 1276, 931 N.Y.2d 925
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 10, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 1276 (In re Wheatley) 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 Wheatley, 89 A.D.3d 1276, 931 N.Y.2d 925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On June 14, 2011, respondent was convicted in Albany County Court upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree, a class C felony, and scheme to defraud in the first degree, a class E felony (see Penal Law § 155.40 [1]; § 190.65 [1] [b]). Petitioner moves pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (a) and (b) to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys. Respondent has not appeared in response to the motion.

Respondent was automatically disbarred and ceased to be an attorney when he entered his guilty plea to a felony (see Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [a]; Matter of Reidy, 77 AD3d 1276 [2010]). Therefore, we grant petitioner’s motion and strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys.

Mercure, J.P, Spain, Rose, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is [1277]*1277further ordered that respondent’s name is hereby stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York; and it is further ordered that 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; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or 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 disbarred attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 806.9).

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

Related

Matter of Sherwood
2018 NY Slip Op 6069 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
In re Hughes
105 A.D.3d 1248 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 A.D.3d 1276, 931 N.Y.2d 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wheatley-nyappdiv-2011.