IN RE: ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468–A. (2021)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2012 and is also admitted in Delaware, where he resides and serves as a Deputy Attorney General.  Respondent was suspended from the practice of law by a May 2019 order of this Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to comply with his attorney registration obligations beginning in 2015 (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a, 172 A.D.3d 1706, 1756, 104 N.Y.S.3d 211 [2019];  see Judiciary Law § 468–a [5];  Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4[d]).  He cured the registration delinquency underlying his suspension in October 2020 and now applies for reinstatement.  The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department has been heard in response to the application.

Initially, we find that respondent has satisfied the procedural requirements for an attorney seeking reinstatement to the practice of law from a suspension of more than six months by his submission of, among other things, a sworn affidavit in the proper form set forth in appendix C to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[b];  Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Wilson], 186 A.D.3d 1874, 1875, 130 N.Y.S.3d 577 [2020]).  We further note his proper submission of proof of his successful completion of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, as is required (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[b]).  As to his admitted failure to file an affidavit of compliance, we find that his statements made in support of his appendix C affidavit have cured this defect (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15;  part 1240, appendix C, ¶ 21;  Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Alimanova], 175 A.D.3d 1767, 1768, 108 N.Y.S.3d 556 [2019]).

Finally, in view of respondent's statements and submissions, we find that he has satisfied the three-part test applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspension (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Oncu], 184 A.D.3d 1071, 1072, 126 N.Y.S.3d 578 [2020]).  Specifically, he has clearly and convincingly demonstrated his compliance with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Hui–Ju Wang], 183 A.D.3d 1225, 1226–1227, 124 N.Y.S.3d 663 [2020];  Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Nenninger], 180 A.D.3d 1317, 1317–1318, 116 N.Y.S.3d 920 [2020];  see also Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15), he possesses the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law and it would be in the public's interest to reinstate him to the practice of law in New York (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] part 1240, appendix C, ¶¶ 14, 23–25, 30–32;  Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Lawrence], 193 A.D.3d 1318, 1319–20, 145 N.Y.S.3d 681 [2021]).  Accordingly, we grant respondent's application and reinstate him to the practice of law.

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted;  and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

Per Curiam.

Garry, P.J., Clark, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur.