mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009446.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "1:20-cv-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 273 of 117",
    "date": "2010",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 09090 (Cite as: 80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187) nite period until further order of this Court, nunc pro tunc to December 18, 2007, and the branch of respondent's cross motion seeking reinstatement to the practice of law should be denied without prejudice to a further motion for the same relief, supported by an expert's evaluation attesting to her present fitness to practice law. Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for an indefinite period until further order of this Court, effective nunc pro tunc to December 18, 2007. Cross motion denied, without prejudice to a fur- ther motion, as indicated. So much of the Opinion Per Curiam and order of this Court entered on December 18, 2007 (M-4837) incorporating a finding of non-cooperation vacated, as indicated. All concur. N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2010. In re Conrad 80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 09090 END OF DOCUMENT",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 09090 (Cite as: 80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187)",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "nite period until further order of this Court, nunc pro tunc to December 18, 2007, and the branch of respondent's cross motion seeking reinstatement to the practice of law should be denied without prejudice to a further motion for the same relief, supported by an expert's evaluation attesting to her present fitness to practice law.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for an indefinite period until further order of this Court, effective nunc pro tunc to December 18, 2007. Cross motion denied, without prejudice to a fur- ther motion, as indicated. So much of the Opinion Per Curiam and order of this Court entered on December 18, 2007 (M-4837) incorporating a finding of non-cooperation vacated, as indicated.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "All concur.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2010. In re Conrad 80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 09090",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "END OF DOCUMENT",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6-3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009446",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Conrad"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Thomson Reuters"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "December 18, 2007",
      "2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cv-00338-PAE",
      "M-4837",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009446"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document from the New York Appellate Division, First Department, dated 2010. It discusses the suspension of a respondent from the practice of law and the denial of their cross-motion for reinstatement. The document is stamped with a case number and has a copyright notice from Thomson Reuters at the bottom."
}