From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rosenbloom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1936
247 App. Div. 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

Opinion

February, 1936.

Present — Lazansky, P.J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ.


Assuming the New Jersey rule limits the practice of the law in that State to residents, it is indicated that applicant misunderstood the meaning of the rule. He says that during the last five months of his "actual practice" in New Jersey, court matters were handled for him by his brother. However, it appearing that while a resident of this State, he practiced law in New Jersey during five months which were at the end of the five-year period required for practice in the sister State, his application must be denied for the same reason that it is denied in Matter of Rotolo [ ante, p. 724], decided herewith. Application denied.


Summaries of

Matter of Rosenbloom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1936
247 App. Div. 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)
Case details for

Matter of Rosenbloom

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application of ISADORE ROSENBLOOM for Admission to…

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1936

Citations

247 App. Div. 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)