You are here: / / Non-Resident Attorneys Must Maintain a Physical Office in New York State...

Non-Resident Attorneys Must Maintain a Physical Office in New York State to Practice in New York

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined the requirement that, in order to practice in New York, non-resident attorneys maintain a physical office in New York State is constitutional:

Here, the statute appears to presuppose a residency requirement for the practice of law in New York State. It then makes an exception, by allowing nonresident attorneys to practice law if they keep an “office for the transaction of law business” in this State. By its plain terms, then, the statute requires nonresident attorneys practicing in New York to maintain a physical law office here. Schoenefeld v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 02674, CtApp 3-31-15

 

You might also like
Failure to Read Jury Notes to Counsel Before Calling in the Jury Was Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—The Error, Therefore, Must Be Preserved by Objection
Because the Landlord Engaged in Fraud, the Four-Year Rent-Overcharge Statute of Limitations Runs Back Four Years from When the Rent Overcharge Action Was Brought/Criteria for Collateral Estoppel Explained (Not Met Here)/Question of Fact Re: Piercing Corporate Veil
STRICT FORECLOSURE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE MAJORITY BONDHOLDERS WHICH CANCELLED THE NOTES PRECLUDED RECOVERY BY THE PLAINTIFFS WHO PURCHASED SOME OF THE NOTES IN THE SECONDARY MARKET (CT APP).
FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
THE ALTERNATE JURORS WERE DISCHARGED JUST PRIOR TO THE LUNCH BREAK; A PROBLEM WITH A SITTING JUROR AROSE DURING THE BREAK AND THE JUROR WAS REMOVED; DELIBERATIONS HAD NOT YET BEGUN BUT THE ALTERNATE JURORS WERE NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR SERVICE; THE JUDGE THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE RECALLED ONE OF THE ALTERNATE JURORS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
FORMULAIC LANGUAGE INDICATING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A BID WAS SUBJECT TO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND DEPOSIT DID NOT NEGATE THE FORMATION OF A BINDING CONTRACT UPON ACCEPTANCE.
FRYE HEARING PROPERLY ORDERED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, DOUBLE HEARSAY ABOUT PRIOR THREAT TO KILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR HARMLESS (CT APP).
BRIEF QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ON A REPRESENTED MATTER WAS SEPARABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW FROM THE QUESTIONING ON AN UNREPRESENTED MATTER (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Even If Information About Prosecution Witness’ Recent Drug Sales Had Been... Moratorium on Fracking Did Not Extend Oil and Gas Leases Beyond the Primary...