You are here: / / MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEYS’ REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE JUDICIARY LAW ...

MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEYS’ REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE JUDICIARY LAW REQUIREMENT THAT THEY MAINTAIN A PHYSICAL OFFICE IN NEW YORK IN ORDER TO PRACTICE IN NEW YORK DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department denied the applications of two Massachusetts attorneys (Fee and Lawless) for a waiver of the Judiciary Law requirement that they maintain a physical office in New York in order to practice in New York. The Third Department, following the 2nd Department and disagreeing with the 1st Department, determined the legal work performed by the attorneys to date was not null and void:

Upon our review of Judiciary Law § 470, we find that it unambiguously provides, without exception, that a prerequisite for a nonresident attorney to practice law in this state is that he or she maintain a physical law office here. In our view, Fee’s and Lawless’ requests for a waiver of the clear mandate of Judiciary Law § 470 “finds no support in the wording of the provision and would require us to take the impermissible step of rewriting the statute” … . In addition to holding that no statutory authority exists for granting the waivers, we also find that creating an avenue for nonresident attorneys to obtain a waiver of the law office requirement would amount to the type of rulemaking reserved for the Ct. of Appeals (see generally Judiciary Law § 53). Accordingly, Fee’s and Lawless’ applications are denied.

Finally, we reject plaintiff’s contention that all of the work performed by Fee and Lawless in this action should be declared void from the beginning. In reaching this conclusion, we adopt the 2nd Department’s reasoning in Elm Mgt. Corp. v Sprung (33 AD3d 753 [2006]) that “the fact that a party has been represented by a person who was not authorized or admitted to practice law under the Judiciary Law . . . does not create a ‘nullity’ or render all prior proceedings void per se” … , and we note our disagreement with the 1st Department’s cases holding to the contrary … . Stegemann v Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Off., 2017 NY Slip Op 06114, Third Dept 8-10-17

ATTORNEYS (OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEYS, MASSACHUSETTS’ ATTORNEYS’ REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE JUDICIARY LAW REQUIREMENT THAT THEY MAINTAIN A PHYSICAL OFFICE IN NEW YORK IN ORDER TO PRACTICE IN NEW YORK DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/JUDICIARY LAW (OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEYS, MASSACHUSETTS’ ATTORNEYS’ REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE JUDICIARY LAW REQUIREMENT THAT THEY MAINTAIN A PHYSICAL OFFICE IN NEW YORK IN ORDER TO PRACTICE IN NEW YORK DENIED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIED TO A PLASTIC CHAIR IN THE RECREATIONAL ROOM OF DEFENDANT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; THE CHAIR COLLAPSED WHILE CLAIMANT WAS SITTING IN IT; THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE CHAIR; COURT OF CLAIMS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
General Municipal Law 205-a and Strict Products Liability Causes of Action Brought by Firefighter Injured During a Fire Survive Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motions
THE COUNTY DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPTL 1125 IN THIS PROPERTY TAX FORECLOSURE CASE (THIRD DEPT).
HERE THE APPELLATE COURT SEVERED PORTIONS OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AS OVERBROAD; THE VALID PORTIONS AUTHORIZED A SEARCH OF THE PHONE FOR EVIDENCE OF CHILD ABUSE; THE SEARCH OF THE PHONE AS AUTHORIZED BY THE VALID PORTIONS OF THE WARRANT TURNED UP A VIDEO OF A RAPE; THAT VIDEO WAS PROPERLY SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).
Deputy Sheriff Fired for Incompetence and Insubordination Was Entitled to Unemployment Benefits
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PROPERLY INCLUDED THE COSTS OF SUB-ALLOCATED PROGRAMS (ADMINISTERED BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS) IN ITS ASSESSMENTS OF OPERATING EXPENSES TO BE PAID BY INSURERS.
One Incident Where Young Children Were Left Alone Overnight Not Enough to Support a Neglect Finding/No Showing of Imminent, as Opposed to Merely Possible, Danger of Impairment to the Children
CLAIMANT PROPERLY DENIED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS BECAUSE CLAIMANT DID NOT OBTAIN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER’S CONSENT BEFORE SETTLING WITH A THIRD-PARTY (THIRD DEPT).

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

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED. FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A SWORN JUROR, AN ATTORNEY, WHOSE FIRM REPRESENTED THE...