Legal Opinion

In re Haas

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

Decided May 5, 1997PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

By order entered February 14, 1997, petitioner’s motion to direct respondent to appear before a staff attorney of petitioner to be examined under oath and to produce certain records and documents was granted. Respondent failed to appear as directed by our order. Petitioner now moves to suspend respon*659dent pending his compliance with the order. Respondent has not replied to the motion.

The motion is granted and respondent is suspended pending his compliance with the order (see, e.g., Matter of Moed, 204 AD2d 852; Matter of Hurwitz, 185 AD2d 597).

Cardona, P. J., White, Casey, Spain and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In re HurwitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  2. In re MoedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. HaasCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API