Legal Opinion

In re Teitelbaum

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

Decided November 8, 2012Published

1Per curiam

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1976. He maintains an office for the practice of law in the hamlet of Slingerlands, Albany County.

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. In support of its motion, petitioner has filed proof by affidavit with supporting exhibits of the facts constituting the alleged professional misconduct. Under such circumstances, respondent is deemed to have admitted the charges, and we grant petitioner’s motion…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In re DaytonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
  2. In re TangAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API