 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
APPELLATE DIVISION ADMISSION BAR COMMITTEE CITRIN APPLICANT COURT REINSTATEMENT MATTER RECOMMENDING SUBCOMMITTEE OPINION PETITIONER DENYING NY2D REVERSE CHARACTER ACCORDANCE CONFIDENTIALITY COSTS JUDGE YORK CURIAM APPEALS FITNESS DOCTOR MOTION REASONS PRINCIPLES |
2 No. 16
In the Matter of Anonymous for Admission to the Bar of the State of
New York,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 19
February 19, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Jeremiah S. Gutman, for appellant.
Respondent, precluded.
_________________________________________________________________
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner appeals from an Appellate Division order denying his
application for admission to the Bar. A member of the Committee on
Character and Fitness interviewed petitioner and wrote a report
recommending that a subcommittee of the full Committee hold a hearing
on the application. A subcommittee held that hearing and, after
writing a report recommending petitioner's admission to the Bar,
referred the matter to the full Committee. The Committee then
furnished the Appellate Division with the interviewer's original
report as well as its own report and the subcommittee report. The
court held the application in abeyance and appointed an independent
doctor to examine petitioner. In her report, the doctor concluded that
petitioner's ailment was under control and would not interfere with
petitioner's ability to function as an attorney. The Appellate
Division denied petitioner's application for admission. The court
granted petitioner's motion to receive a transcript of the
subcommittee hearing and the doctor's report, but denied the motion to
receive copies of the Committee and subcommittee reports. We granted
leave to appeal.
In Matter of Citrin (94 2 459, 464 (2000)), this Court construed 22
NYCRR 690.16 to require the Appellate Division, before denying a
disbarred attorney's reinstatement application, to provide the
applicant with a copy of the Committee's report so the applicant might
"correct any errors in the report or * * * address the Committee's
concerns about his reinstatement." The Committee report in Citrin
recommended reinstatement, but the Appellate Division rejected that
recommendation. While section 690.16 required disclosure only of a
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
