Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981

In re Nitsberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 31, 1981

79 A.D.2d 489; 437 N.Y.S.2d 320; 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9731

Counsel

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Howard Benjamin of counsel (Michael A. Gentile, attorney), for petitioner., Stephen P. Scaring for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Crescenzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
In re Glassman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
In re Javitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
In re Staller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
In re Teplin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was indefinitely suspended in 1974 (Matter of Nitsberg, 44 AD2d 826).

The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District has brought to our attention the fact that the respondent was practicing law in Nassau County, with a law office and a telephone listing and advertising in the local newspaper.

The original suspension was made in the course of a disciplinary proceeding on the basis of the respondent’s *490mental incapacity due to psychiatric problems. His attorney now attempts to excuse the violation of subdivision 2 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law on the basis that these mental problems have reoccurred.

The Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department asks that the respondent be held in contempt of court, that he be disbarred and that an attorney be appointed to inventory the files of respondent so as to protect the interests of his clients.

In order to protect the public, the respondent should be disbarred effective immediately, respondent’s name should be stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York and an attorney should be appointed to inventory the files of respondent and to take such action as is necessary to protect the interests of respondent’s clients.

Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Sullivan and Markewich, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York, and an attorney appointed to inventory the files of respondent as indicated in the order of this court.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.