In re Ehrlich
In the Matter of Bernard Ehrlich, an Attorney, Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice law in this State on May 2, 1952, in the Second Judicial Department. At all relevant times herein, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
On January 12, 1989, defendant pleaded guilty to the felony of bribe receiving in the second degree in the Supreme Court, New York County. A certificate evidencing this conviction has been presented to the court. (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [b].)
Although not yet sentenced, respondent ceased to be an *429 attorney and counselor-at-law upon his conviction of a felony. (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [a]; Matter of Geller, 97 AD2d 306 .)
Accordingly, the petition should be granted and respondent’s name should be stricken from the roll of attorneys forthwith.
Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ., concur.
Respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York forthwith.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.