Legal Opinion
In re Farrington
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 16, 2000PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1982. He is currently suspended from practice (Matter of Farrington, 257 AD2d 914).
Respondent has not answered or otherwise appeared in response to a petition of charges and a subsequent motion for default judgment by petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, although both were personally served upon him. Petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of the motion and the charges. Under such circumstances, respondent is deemed to have admitted the charges and we grant the motion {see, e.g., Matter of Petrolawicz, 228…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In re PetrolawiczAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- In re FarringtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
3Cited by6 opinions
- In re GoldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- In re EjimakorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- In re PhillipsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- In re BlevinsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- In re Van BenschotenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.