withdrawal privilege in New York

1994Corp., 56 NY2d 175, 184 , rearg denied 57 NY2d 674 ).

1975(People v Chaney, 25 NY2d 966 ; People v White, 32 NY2d 393 .) Recently our Court of Appeals (in People v Blakley, 34 NY2d 311 , in an opinion written by Judge Rabin) stated; "This appeal requires us to decide whether a prosecutor may condition an offer to recommend a reduced plea upon the defendant’s withdrawal of his claim that his right to a speedy trial has been violated.

1975(People v Chaney, 25 NY2d 966 ; People v White, 32 NY2d 393 .) Recently our Court of Appeals (in People v Blakley, 34 NY2d 311 , in an opinion written by Judge Rabin) stated; "This appeal requires us to decide whether a prosecutor may condition an offer to recommend a reduced plea upon the defendant’s withdrawal of his claim that his right to a speedy trial has been violated.

1969Johnson v. Follette, supra, p. 480 ).

1961Corp. v. Murdock, 285 N. Y. 298, 304 .) Indeed, a recent decision in New Jersey indicates a withdrawal from the rule of measurement as set forth in Savite-Denbigh Co. v. Bigelow (supra).

1956Hence, the statute must be interpreted in the light of the fundamental canon that penal statutes must be strictly construed.” (Matter of Donegan, 282 N. Y. 285, 292 .) If a reversed conviction is without legal force or effect except where an attorney and counsellor at law is the defendant, this statute would deny the equal protection of the laws.

1956Sloane v. Lawes, supra), then subdivision 5 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law is unconstitutional insofar as it means, if it does mean, that the lawyer must assume the burden of disproving his guilt of a crime of which he has not been convicted. ‘ ‘ Although disbarment is not strictly a punishment for crime, but only the withdrawal of a privilege * * * it cannot be denied that the requirement of automatic and irrevocable disbarment for life provided by the Judiciary Law, is in effect a consequence most severe, and partakes of the nature of punishment.

1943(Power Co. v. Saunders, 274 U. S. 490, 495 , and cases there cited; Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 589 ; Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 406 ; Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Torres, 263 App. Div. 19 .) The rendition of medical care to injured employees doubtless must he denominated as a privilege rather than as a right of the physician, but nevertheless withdrawal of the privilege “ is in effect a consequence most severe, and partakes of the nature of punishment ” (compare Matter of Donegan, 282 N. Y. 283, 292 , and Matter of Bender v. Board of Regents, 262 App. Div. 627, 631 ), and proced

1943(Power Co. v. Saunders, 274 U. S. 490, 495 , and cases there cited; Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 589 ; Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 406 ; Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Torres, 263 App. Div. 19 .) The rendition of medical care to injured employees doubtless must he denominated as a privilege rather than as a right of the physician, but nevertheless withdrawal of the privilege “ is in effect a consequence most severe, and partakes of the nature of punishment ” (compare Matter of Donegan, 282 N. Y. 283, 292 , and Matter of Bender v. Board of Regents, 262 App. Div. 627, 631 ), and proced

1943(Power Co. v. Saunders, 274 U. S. 490, 495 , and cases there cited; Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 589 ; Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 406 ; Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Torres, 263 App. Div. 19 .) The rendition of medical care to injured employees doubtless must he denominated as a privilege rather than as a right of the physician, but nevertheless withdrawal of the privilege “ is in effect a consequence most severe, and partakes of the nature of punishment ” (compare Matter of Donegan, 282 N. Y. 283, 292 , and Matter of Bender v. Board of Regents, 262 App. Div. 627, 631 ), and proced

1943(Power Co. v. Saunders, 274 U. S. 490, 495 , and cases there cited; Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 589 ; Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 406 ; Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Torres, 263 App. Div. 19 .) The rendition of medical care to injured employees doubtless must he denominated as a privilege rather than as a right of the physician, but nevertheless withdrawal of the privilege “ is in effect a consequence most severe, and partakes of the nature of punishment ” (compare Matter of Donegan, 282 N. Y. 283, 292 , and Matter of Bender v. Board of Regents, 262 App. Div. 627, 631 ), and proced

1943(Power Co. v. Saunders, 274 U. S. 490, 495 , and cases there cited; Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 589 ; Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 406 ; Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Torres, 263 App. Div. 19 .) The rendition of medical care to injured employees doubtless must he denominated as a privilege rather than as a right of the physician, but nevertheless withdrawal of the privilege “ is in effect a consequence most severe, and partakes of the nature of punishment ” (compare Matter of Donegan, 282 N. Y. 283, 292 , and Matter of Bender v. Board of Regents, 262 App. Div. 627, 631 ), and proced

1941Defendant also asserts a claim “ in excess of $500 ” against the funds in its hands for expenses as fiscal agents, exclusive of any charge for services, and while no setoff, as such, is pleaded by virtue of a banker’s lien (Matter of Wilkins, 131 Misc. 188 ) or counterclaim (Civ.

1940Although disbarment is not strictly a punishment for crime, but only the withdrawal of a privilege (Matter of Rouss, 221 N. Y. 81, 91 ), it cannot be denied that the requirement of automatic and irrevocable disbarment for life provided by the Judiciary Law, is in effect a consequence most severe, and partakes of the nature of punishment.

1914Pierson v. People, 79 N. Y. 424 .

1909Ct. 441; affd., 102 N. Y. 224 .) The reports in the above case do not state that the withdrawal of the exception to the sureties was by oral stipulation, but an examination of the record discloses that such was the fact.

1879(People v. McKay, 18 Johns., 212 .) We, therefore, think that by the withdrawal of the challenge to the array the prisoner waived all benefit thereof and expressed himself content with the jury as constituted, and cannot now raise any question as to the regularity of the drawing of the additional jurors, even if they had composed any portion of the panel by which ho was tried, which, however, does not appear.