Summary
holding that a complainant lacked standing to compel a disciplinary committee's investigation of his former counsel as he suffered "no direct and harmful effect" from the committee's decision not to institute proceedings
Summary of this case from Bernstein v. App. Div. First D. Disciplinary ComOpinion
December 19, 2000.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about December 8, 1999, which denied petitioner's application pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent Departmental Disciplinary Committee's determination not to institute proceedings against petitioner's former counsel, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Neb Morrow III, etc. Pro Se, for petitioner-appellant.
Lisa Ghartey, for respondents-respondents.
Before: Lerner, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.
Petitioner, who is not the licensee, does not have standing since there is no direct and harmful effect on him (see, Matter of Altamore v. Barrios-Paoli, 90 N.Y.2d 378, 384; Mantell v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, 277 A.D.2d 96, 2000 N Y App. Div. LEXIS 11985).
Motion seeking to expand record denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.