In re Connery
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
On February 24, 1987, in the United States District Court
We find that the Federal felony is essentially similar to New York Penal Law § 175.35, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, a class E felony. Both 18 USC § 152 and Penal Law § 175.35 require a presentation of a false instrument to a branch of government, knowing the instrument to be false, and with the intent to defraud the government (see generally, Matter of Johnston, 75 NY2d 403).
Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law upon his conviction of a felony.
Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted and the respondent’s cross motion is denied as academic. The respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.
Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted and the respondent’s cross motion is denied as academic; and it is further,
Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent Edmund M. Connery is disbarred, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent shall promptly comply with this court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,
Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, effective immediately, the respondent Edmund M. Connery is commanded to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.