Matter of Urda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Urda

131 A.D.3d 798, 15 N.Y.S.3d 707

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

DecidedAugust 27, 2015

DocketD-60-15

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.3d 798 (Matter of Urda) 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

Matter of Urda, 131 A.D.3d 798, 15 N.Y.S.3d 707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1988. He maintains an office for the practice of law in the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County.

By decision dated October 25, 2012, this Court suspended re *799 spondent from the practice of law for a period of one year, which suspension was conditionally stayed (99 AD3d 1165 [2012]). Respondent now moves for termination of the stayed suspension and he has provided a supporting affidavit indicating that the conditions of the stay have been fully complied with. Petitioner does not oppose the motion, which we now grant.

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that respondent’s motion is granted, and the stayed suspension imposed by this Court’s decision dated October 25, 2012 is terminated, effective immediately.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1988. He maintains an office for the practice of law in the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County.

By decision dated October 25, 2012, this Court suspended re *799 spondent from the practice of law for a period of one year, which suspension was conditionally stayed (99 AD3d 1165 [2012]). Respondent now moves for termination of the stayed suspension and he has provided a supporting affidavit indicating that the conditions of the stay have been fully complied with. Petitioner does not oppose the motion, which we now grant.

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that respondent’s motion is granted, and the stayed suspension imposed by this Court’s decision dated October 25, 2012 is terminated, effective immediately.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 798, 15 N.Y.S.3d 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-urda-nyappdiv-2015.