Kuriakose v. Evans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kuriakose v. Evans

206 A.D.2d 481, 614 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7452

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 18, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a purported proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to vacate a report of a Special Referee, dated June 18, 1991, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered October 16, 1992, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner was disbarred by decision and order of this Court dated November 12, 1991 (see, Matter of Kuriakose, 171 AD2d 358). He subsequently commenced this proceeding, purportedly pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking (1) to vacate the Special Referee’s report of his disciplinary proceeding, (2) a trial de novo pursuant to CPLR 7804 (h), and (3) reinstatement to the Bar. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We now affirm.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, the power to remove an attorney from the practice of law and to readmit that attorney is exclusively vested in the Appellate Divisions. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is prohibited from undertaking an appellate review of the decision and order of this Court (see, NY Const, art VI, § 7; see also, Matter of Kuriakose, supra). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In a purported proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to vacate a report of a Special Referee, dated June 18, 1991, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered October 16, 1992, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner was disbarred by decision and order of this Court dated November 12, 1991 (see, Matter of Kuriakose, 171 AD2d 358). He subsequently commenced this proceeding, purportedly pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking (1) to vacate the Special Referee’s report of his disciplinary proceeding, (2) a trial de novo pursuant to CPLR 7804 (h), and (3) reinstatement to the Bar. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We now affirm.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, the power to remove an attorney from the practice of law and to readmit that attorney is exclusively vested in the Appellate Divisions. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is prohibited from undertaking an appellate review of the decision and order of this Court (see, NY Const, art VI, § 7; see also, Matter of Kuriakose, supra). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Kuriakose v. Evans, 206 A.D.2d 481, 614 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

206 A.D.2d 481 (Kuriakose v. Evans) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related