No case has been found exactly in point. Of those cited in the briefs, the following furnish some support for the holding in this opinion: Matter of Rotolo, 247 App.Div. 724, 285 N.Y.S. 274; Matter of Rosenbloom, 274 App.Div. 725, 285 N.Y.S. 275; Edmonds v. Webb, 182 Md. 60, 32 A.2d 702; In re Scott, 70 Cal.App. 716, 234 P. 128; In re Pierce, 189 Wis. 441, 452, 207 N.W. 966; Henderson v. State Bar, 219 Cal. 696, 28 P.2d 915. Great stress is laid by the applicant on the magnitude, variety and extent of his work as special assistant to the attorney general of the United States. No attempt is made here or by the appellant to minimize its importance.
Present — Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ. Assuming applicant's services with the Home Owners' Loan Corporation was practicing in Washington, D.C., she was a resident of New York for two years and nine months of the five-year period of practice in a sister State required by the Rules of the Court of Appeals. Application denied. ( Matter of Rotolo, 247 App. Div. 724.)
But applicant, when admitted and while practicing in the District of Columbia, was a resident of the State of New York; in fact has been such resident since 1912. A resident of this State may not be admitted without examination under the circumstances stated. ( Matter of Rotolo, 247 App. Div. 724.)
On this ground the application should be denied. ( Matter of Rotolo, 247 App. Div. 724. ) Application denied.
On this ground the application should be denied. ( Matter of Rotolo, 247 App. Div. 724. ) But it is not necessary to base denial on this ground alone. The petitioner's conflicting statements and the changing of dates on two different occasions and his failure to advise the court of his real status as a resident of the State of New York indicate a shifting of position and a lack of reliability in presenting the facts to the court.