From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Hyatt Legal Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 4, 1983
97 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

November 4, 1983

Present — Dillon, P.J., Hancock, Jr., Boomer, O'Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.


Motion for summary judgment denied, petition dismissed as to respondent Hyatt Legal Services sua sponte, without prejudice. memorandum: The Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District has petitioned this court seeking an order that Hyatt Legal Services (Hyatt) has violated sections 478, 479, 484, 491 and 492 of the Judiciary Law and Canons 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hyatt operates three law offices in the Buffalo area which are staffed with duly admitted New York attorneys. None of the partners of Hyatt is admitted to practice in New York. However, all parties herein have stipulated that this court have jurisdiction of the grievance proceeding. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court by consent of the parties ( Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46). The Judiciary Law invests in the Appellate Division exclusive jurisdiction to discipline attorneys admitted to practice in New York but specifically authorizes the Supreme Court to entertain an action to enjoin the unlawful practice of law (Judiciary Law, § 90, subd 2; § 476-a).


Summaries of

Matter of Hyatt Legal Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 4, 1983
97 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Matter of Hyatt Legal Services

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HYATT LEGAL SERVICES et al., Respondents. GRIEVANCE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 4, 1983

Citations

97 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Weissbrod v. Dopico

As an initial matter, all parties have agreed that claims 2 and 7 should be referred to the Appellate…

In Matter of Weissbrod v. Dopico

Claim 2 involves the disciplinary hearing against petitioner and claim 7 is petitioner's assertion that…