member bar in New York

2021"An association may expel a member for a violation of its established rules for which expulsion is provided" ( Matter of Marandino v Westchester Country Club, Inc. , 33 AD3d 800, 800 ; see Matter of Purpura v Richmond County Country Club , 114 AD2d 460, 461 ).

2007An association may expel a member for a violation of its established rules for which expulsion is provided (see Matter of Purpura v Richmond County Country Club, 114 AD2d 460, 461 [1985]).

2016Thus, a defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel where a member of defense counsel’s law firm represents a witness who testifies against defendant at trial unless the court conducts a “Gomberg inquiry to ascertain that the facts had been disclosed to defendant and that he [or she] had made a reasoned decision whether to proceed to trial with his [or her] attorney” (People v Astafan, 283 AD2d 907, 907 [2001]; see People v Ortiz, 76 NY2d 652, 656 [1990]; see generally People v Gomberg, 38 NY2d 307, 313-314 [1975]).

2016Thus, a defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel where a member of defense counsel’s law firm represents a witness who testifies against defendant at trial unless the court conducts a “Gomberg inquiry to ascertain that the facts had been disclosed to defendant and that he [or she] had made a reasoned decision whether to proceed to trial with his [or her] attorney” (People v Astafan, 283 AD2d 907, 907 [2001]; see People v Ortiz, 76 NY2d 652, 656 [1990]; see generally People v Gomberg, 38 NY2d 307, 313-314 [1975]).

2016Thus, a defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel where a member of defense counsel’s law firm represents a witness who testifies against defendant at trial unless the court conducts a “Gomberg inquiry to ascertain that the facts had been disclosed to defendant and that he [or she] had made a reasoned decision whether to proceed to trial with his [or her] attorney” (People v Astafan, 283 AD2d 907, 907 [2001]; see People v Ortiz, 76 NY2d 652, 656 [1990]; see generally People v Gomberg, 38 NY2d 307, 313-314 [1975]).

2016Thus, a defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel where a member of defense counsel’s law firm represents a witness who testifies against defendant at trial unless the court conducts a “Gomberg inquiry to ascertain that the facts had been disclosed to defendant and that he [or she] had made a reasoned decision whether to proceed to trial with his [or her] attorney” (People v Astafan, 283 AD2d 907, 907 [2001]; see People v Ortiz, 76 NY2d 652, 656 [1990]; see generally People v Gomberg, 38 NY2d 307, 313-314 [1975]).

2021"Moreover,'where the constitution and by-laws of a voluntary association reasonably set forth grounds for expulsion and provide for a hearing upon notice to the member, judicial review of such proceedings is unavailable, unless the reason for expulsion is not a violation of the constitution or by-laws or is so trivial as to suggest that the action of the association was capricious or corrupt, or unless the association failed to administer its own rules fairly'" ( Matter of Kelly v Northport Yacht Club, Inc. , 44 AD3d 858, 859 , quoting Bloch v Veteran Corps. of Artillery, State of N.Y. , 61 AD

2007Moreover, “where the constitution and by-laws of a voluntary association reasonably set forth grounds for expulsion and provide for a hearing upon notice to the member, judicial review of such proceedings is unavailable, unless the reason for expulsion is not a violation of the constitution or by-laws or is so trivial as to suggest that the action of the association was capricious or corrupt, or unless the association failed to administer its own rules fairly” (Bloch v Veteran Corps. of Artillery, State of N.Y., 61 AD2d 772, 773 [1978]; see Caposella v Pinto, 265 AD2d 362, 363 [1999]).

2016Thus, a defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel where a member of defense counsel’s law firm represents a witness who testifies against defendant at trial unless the court conducts a “Gomberg inquiry to ascertain that the facts had been disclosed to defendant and that he [or she] had made a reasoned decision whether to proceed to trial with his [or her] attorney” (People v Astafan, 283 AD2d 907, 907 [2001]; see People v Ortiz, 76 NY2d 652, 656 [1990]; see generally People v Gomberg, 38 NY2d 307, 313-314 [1975]).

2016Thus, a defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel where a member of defense counsel’s law firm represents a witness who testifies against defendant at trial unless the court conducts a “Gomberg inquiry to ascertain that the facts had been disclosed to defendant and that he [or she] had made a reasoned decision whether to proceed to trial with his [or her] attorney” (People v Astafan, 283 AD2d 907, 907 [2001]; see People v Ortiz, 76 NY2d 652, 656 [1990]; see generally People v Gomberg, 38 NY2d 307, 313-314 [1975]).

2012Specifically, the Committee found that DeMell had engaged in ‘conduct inimical to the administration of justice’ . . . and had neglected matters entrusted to him as a lawyer” ( 589 F3d at 570 , quoting In re Snyder, 472 US 634, 645 [1985], and citing former New York Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101[a] [3] [22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a) (3)]).

2012Specifically, the Committee found that DeMell had engaged in ‘conduct inimical to the administration of justice’ . . . and had neglected matters entrusted to him as a lawyer” ( 589 F3d at 570 , quoting In re Snyder, 472 US 634, 645 [1985], and citing former New York Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101[a] [3] [22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a) (3)]).

2007Moreover, “where the constitution and by-laws of a voluntary association reasonably set forth grounds for expulsion and provide for a hearing upon notice to the member, judicial review of such proceedings is unavailable, unless the reason for expulsion is not a violation of the constitution or by-laws or is so trivial as to suggest that the action of the association was capricious or corrupt, or unless the association failed to administer its own rules fairly” (Bloch v Veteran Corps. of Artillery, State of N.Y., 61 AD2d 772, 773 [1978]; see Caposella v Pinto, 265 AD2d 362, 363 [1999]).

2006Moreover, “ ‘where the constitution and by-laws of a voluntary association reasonably set forth grounds for expulsion and provide for a hearing upon notice to the member, judicial review of such proceedings is unavailable, unless the reason for expulsion is not a violation of the constitution or by-laws or is so trivial as to suggest that the action of the association was capricious or corrupt, or unless the association failed to administer its own rules fairly’ ” (Caposella v Pinto, 265 AD2d 362, 363 [1999], quoting Bloch v Veteran Corps, of Artillery, State of N.Y., 61 AD2d 772, 773 [1978]).

2021Counsel must provide " 'effective' " representation ( id. ; see People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 146 [1981]), and it is well established that the courts have an "ongoing duty" to safeguard that right ( People v Linares , 2 NY3d 507, 510 [2004]; see Medina , 44 NY2d at 207).

2021Counsel must provide effective representation . . . , and it is well established that the courts have an ongoing duty to safeguard that right" ( Stackhouse , 194 AD3d at 122 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Medina , 44 NY2d 199 , 207 [1978]).

2021Counsel must provide " 'effective' " representation ( id. ; see People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 146 [1981]), and it is well established that the courts have an "ongoing duty" to safeguard that right ( People v Linares , 2 NY3d 507, 510 [2004]; see Medina , 44 NY2d at 207).

2015Similarly, we set aside a verdict where counsel, in twice claiming that the City was fabricating evidence "vouched for his own credibility and sought to bolster it as well by improperly invoking his status as a member of the bar" ( Valenzuela v City of New York , 59 AD3d 40, 45 [1st Dept 2008]).

2015Similarly, we set aside a verdict where counsel, in twice claiming that the City was fabricating evidence “vouched for his own credibility and sought to bolster it as well by improperly invoking his status as a member of the bar” (Valenzuela v City of New York, 59 AD3d 40, 45 [1st Dept 2008]).

2009Matter of Anonymous, 78 NY2d 227, 232 [1991]; see also ABA Code of Recommended Standards for Bar Examiners, standards 7, 12, 13).

2007Field v Cronshaw, 138 AD2d 765, 765-766 [2d Dept 1988], appeal dismissed 72 NY2d 872 [1988].) While, in the case at bar, Mr. Smolenski is a member of the bar, if he intends to represent his wife, he is subject to all of the rules and regulations promulgated with respect to the practice of law in the State of New York, including the need for a written retainer.

2004Co., 87 NY2d 308, 318 [1995]).