Matter of Klein

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Klein

219 N.E.2d 194, 18 N.Y.2d 598, 272 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1193

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 7, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 219 N.E.2d 194 (Matter of Klein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Klein, 219 N.E.2d 194, 18 N.Y.2d 598, 272 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1193 (N.Y. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Appellate Division was warranted in ordering the appellant’s disbarment. Although the appellant had the opportunity, accorded by subdivision 2 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, to be heard, he did not raise any triable issues, prior to entry of the order of disbarment, since he failed to interpose an answer denying any of the charges of misconduct leveled against him. The Appellate Division has granted his motion to vacate such order to the extent of giving him permission to file an answer and referring the issues raised by the answer to a Justice of the Supreme Court for the purpose of conducting a hearing and rendering a report (24 A D 2d 726). The appellant has thus been assured of an additional opportunity to be.heard.

It should be noted that the order of disbarment, as its recitals demonstrate, was predicated solely on the charges contained in the petition and, accordingly, in reaching onr decision herein, *601 we have disregarded the intimations in the Appellate Division’s opinion that the appellant made ‘ ‘ baseless written charges against members of the judiciary and members of the Bar ’ ’ in view of the fact that the petition does not contain such a charge.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Van Vookhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Keating concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The Appellate Division was warranted in ordering the appellant’s disbarment. Although the appellant had the opportunity, accorded by subdivision 2 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, to be heard, he did not raise any triable issues, prior to entry of the order of disbarment, since he failed to interpose an answer denying any of the charges of misconduct leveled against him. The Appellate Division has granted his motion to vacate such order to the extent of giving him permission to file an answer and referring the issues raised by the answer to a Justice of the Supreme Court for the purpose of conducting a hearing and rendering a report (24 A D 2d 726). The appellant has thus been assured of an additional opportunity to be.heard.

It should be noted that the order of disbarment, as its recitals demonstrate, was predicated solely on the charges contained in the petition and, accordingly, in reaching onr decision herein, *601 we have disregarded the intimations in the Appellate Division’s opinion that the appellant made ‘ ‘ baseless written charges against members of the judiciary and members of the Bar ’ ’ in view of the fact that the petition does not contain such a charge.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Van Vookhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Keating concur.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 N.E.2d 194, 18 N.Y.2d 598, 272 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-klein-ny-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack