Legal Opinion

In re Wheatley

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

Decided September 25, 2002PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—Per Curiam.

Respondent has not answered or otherwise replied to a petition of charges or to petitioner’s subsequent motion for a default judgment, both of which were personally served upon him. Under the circumstances, respondent is deemed to have admitted the charges and we grant petitioner’s motion (see e.g. Matter of Petrolawicz, 228 AD2d 1005). Further, based on such admission and the proof submitted by petitioner in support of its motion, we find respondent guilty of the charged misconduct.

Respondent neglected numerous legal matters, including failing to appear at scheduled court…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In re PetrolawiczAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re PoveromoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  2. In re RothenbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  3. In re WheatleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  4. Matter of GrahamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API