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
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) WERE NOT ENTITLED TO “PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE” DURING THE SUMMER OF 2020 PURSUANT TO THE “CORONAVIRUS AID, RELIEF AND ECONOMIC SECURITY (CARES) ACT;” THE COURT’S ANALYSIS IS TOO DETAILED TO FAIRLY SUMMARIZE HERE (CT APP).
Corroborative Evidence for Confession—Strategy Behind Not Requesting Lesser Included Offenses and Severance
AFTER DEFENSE COUNSEL REPEATEDLY USED THE N-WORD (QUOTING A CO-DEFENDANT) IN CROSS-EXAMINING THE VICTIM A JUROR STOOD UP AND SAID SHE FOUND THE WORD VERY OFFENSIVE AND WOULD LEAVE IF COUNSEL USED THE WORD AGAIN; THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT CONDUCT A BUFORD HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE JUROR SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED; CONVICTION AFFIRMED OVER A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN A DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACTION PURSUANT TO GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (H) ARE LIMITED TO THREE TIMES ACTUAL DAMAGES (CT APP).
TWO PRIOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON INCIDENTS IN 2006 AND 2007, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THE WEAPONS BELONGED TO ANOTHER AND HE WAS UNAWARE OF THEIR PRESENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX IN THIS 2017 POSSESSION OF A WEAPON PROSECUTION, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THEY WERE PLACED IN THE VEHICLE BY ANOTHER WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE; THERE WAS A CONCURRENCE AND A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​
HERE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS REDUCED PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) AFTER SHE HAD BEEN IMPRISONED LONGER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY THE DVSJA; THE EXCESS PRISON TIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREDITED TO ELIMINATE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (CT APP).
A Third-Party’s Removal of a Safety Device Did Not Require Summary Judgment In Favor of the Manufacturer, Even though the Safety Device Would Have Prevented the Injury/There Was Evidence the Safety Device Itself Was Defective, Leading to Its Removal by the Third Party/Therefore, the “Substantial Modification” Defense Did Not Insulate the Manufacturer from Liability as a Matter of Law
Evidence of a Defendant’s Silence In Response to Questions Posed by the Police Cannot Be Introduced in the People’s Case-In-Chief

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 © 2026 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...