Schachter v. Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Supreme Court

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schachter v. Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Supreme Court

212 A.D.2d 378, 623 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1239

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 378 (Schachter v. Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Supreme Court) 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

Schachter v. Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Supreme Court, 212 A.D.2d 378, 623 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1239 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Application pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging the determination of respondent Departmental Disciplinary Committee, dated July 22, 1993, to dismiss petitioner’s complaints against two attorneys (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Herman Cahn, J.], entered January 7, 1994), is unanimously denied and the proceeding dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner has not established that respondent failed to perform a purely ministerial act required by law (CPLR 7803 [1]; Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ross, JJ.

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

—Application pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging the determination of respondent Departmental Disciplinary Committee, dated July 22, 1993, to dismiss petitioner’s complaints against two attorneys (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Herman Cahn, J.], entered January 7, 1994), is unanimously denied and the proceeding dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner has not established that respondent failed to perform a purely ministerial act required by law (CPLR 7803 [1]; Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 378, 623 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schachter-v-departmental-disciplinary-committee-of-the-supreme-court-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack