Opinion · Nylaw New York

MATTER OF LOTSOF, 34 N.Y.2d 952 (1974)

In the Matter of Application of CHARLES S. LOTSOF, Appellant, forAdmission to Prac. as an Att’y & Couns. at Law., 34 N.Y.2d 952 (Court of Appeals of the State of New York. 1974)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
1974-01-01
Topic
general

MATTER OF LOTSOF, 34 N.Y.2d 952 (1974) In the Matter of the Application of CHARLES S. LOTSOF, Appellant, forAdmission to Practice as an Attorney and Counselor at Law.Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued May 6, 1974 Decided July 15, 1974 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department. Jeremiah S. Gutman and Donald L. Doernberg for appellant.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MATTER OF LOTSOF, 34 N.Y.2d 952 (1974). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MATTER OF LOTSOF,34 N.Y.2d 952(1974)
In the Matter of the Application of CHARLES S. LOTSOF, Appellant, for
Admission to Practice as an Attorney and Counselor at Law.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Argued May 6, 1974
Decided July 15, 1974
Page 953
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department.
Jeremiah S. GutmanandDonald L. Doernbergfor appellant.Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General(Daniel M. CohenandSamuel A. Hirshowitzof counsel), in his statutory capacity under section71of the Executive Law.Clifton C. Tang, amicus curiae.
Per Curiam.
We affirm the order of the Appellate Division in the absence of any proof in the record that the applicant was an actual resident of the State of New York at the time of filing his application for admission to practice (CPLR9406, subd. 3). In that view of the matter we do not reach the question of the validity of a durational residence requirement.

We take this opportunity to invite attention to what appears to us to be the high desirability of legislative reconsideration of the broad basis of eligibility for admission to the Bar, including requirements as to both residency and employment (cf. L. 1974, ch. 75).

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, RABIN and STEVENS concur inPer Curiamopinion.

Order affirmed.Page 954