| Matter of Bernstein; Grievance Committee for the Second, El |
| Motion No: 2000-00003 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 72179(U) |
| Decided on May 9, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M119759
E/ct
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA
PETER B. SKELOS
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
|
2000-00003 In the Matter of Joshua Bernstein, a disbarred attorney. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth, Judicial Districts, petitioner; Joshua Bernstein, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2903961)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by Joshua Bernstein for a "final order" addressing his contention that the order of disbarment did not "adjudicate [his] retaining lien defense." By opinion and order of this Court dated August 20, 2001, Mr. Bernstein was disbarred from the practice of law in New York based on one charge of professional misconduct. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 17, 2001, Mr. Bernstein's motion for reargument of the opinion and order August 20, 2001, or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. By order dated February 13, 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed Mr. Bernstein's appeal of the opinion and order dated August 20, 2001, on constitutional grounds. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 19, 2007, Mr. Bernstein 's first motion to vacate the opinion and order dated August 20, 2001, was denied. By decision and order on motion of the Court dated June 1, 2010, Mr. Bernstein's second motion to vacate the opinion and order dated August 20, 2001, disbarring him, was denied. Mr. Bernstein was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on November 4, 1998.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
This Court previously considered the respondent's retaining lien defense argument, as reflected in its opinion and order dated August 20, 2001, and found it to be without merit.
PRUDENTI, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, SKELOS and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court