Legal Opinion

In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a

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

Decided February 11, 2002PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—Per Curiam.

Petitioner moves to suspend respondent attorneys on the ground that they have failed to file a registration statement and pay the required attorney registration fee in accordance with Judiciary Law § 468-a and part 118 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR part 118).

The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration and a notice sent by petitioner, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. They have also failed to respond to the instant motion.

Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re FarleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  2. In re RyanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  3. In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-aAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-aAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  2. In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-aAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API