Matter of Roover, 2017 NY Slip Op 7675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Roover, 2017 NY Slip Op 7675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Donnelly
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to take corrective action ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; People v Clark , 155 AD3d 1184, 1185-1186 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sanford
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
However, this claim is unpreserved for our review, as defendant did not at any point object to the issuance of a final order of protection or move to withdraw his guilty plea prior to the imposition of sentence ( see People v Williams , 27 NY3d 212, 214, 219-220 [2016]; People v Nieves , 2 NY3d 310, 316-317 [2004]; People v Toxey , 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; People v Clark , 155 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2017]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Surdis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Initially, as the duration of the orders was first discussed at sentencing, after the appeal waiver, this claim survives that waiver ( see People v Clark , 155 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2017]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Cuttler
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Defendant has not challenged the validity of the plea or the appeal waiver and, inasmuch as the record establishes that the order of protection was disclosed to defendant as part of his plea agreement prior to both the plea colloquy and his waiver of the right to appeal, the appeal waiver encompasses his present challenge to the order of protection, precluding our review ( see People v Fontaine , 144 AD3d 1658 , 1658 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 997 [2017]; compare People v Clark , 155 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2017]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Hawkins
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
Inasmuch as Hawkins is therefore subject to potential disciplinary action ( see Judiciary Law § 468-a [5]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]; see also Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a , 113 AD3d 1020 , 1021 [2014]), he is ineligible for nondisciplinary resignation and his application must be denied ( see Matter of Roover , 155 AD3d 1184 [2017]; Matter of Bomba , 146 AD3d 1226, 1226-1227 [2017]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Melissa Ann Roover, an Attorney
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 2, 2017.
2017 NY Slip Op 7675
McCarthy, Garry, Devine, Aarons, Pritzker.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Melissa Ann Roover was admitted to practice by this Court in 2001 and lists a business address in Washington, D.C. with the Office of Court Administration. Roover now seeks leave to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [a]). The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) opposes the application by correspondence from its Chief Attorney.

As is noted by AGC, Roover is presently delinquent in her New York attorney registration requirements, having failed to register for two consecutive biennial periods beginning in 2015 (see Judiciary Law § 468-a; Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1). Inasmuch as Roover is therefore subject to potential disciplinary action (see Judiciary Law § 468-a [5]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [dj; see also Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 113 AD3d 1020, 1021 [2014]), she is ineligible for nondisciplinary resignation and her application must be denied (see Matter of Cluff, 148 AD3d 1346, 1346 [2017]; Matter of Bomba, 146 AD3d 1226, 1226-1227 [2017]). Further, any future application by Roover must be supported by proof of her full satisfaction of the requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 (see Matter of Frank, 146 AD3d 1228, 1228-1229 [2017]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Devine, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur.

Ordered that Melissa Ann Roover’s application for permission to resign is denied.