IN RE: GERARD MARTIN CAREY JR. (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

IN RE: GERARD MARTIN CAREY JR., a Suspended Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 1744333)

PM–120–26

Decided: June 04, 2026

Before: Clark, J.P., Aarons, McShan, Powers and Corcoran, JJ.

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Second Judicial Department in 1981 and maintains a business address in the City of Kingston, Ulster County (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.7[a][2] ). By October 2023 order of this Court, respondent was suspended from practice for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to comply with his attorney registration obligations (220 AD3d 1012, 1014 [3d Dept 2023] ). Respondent remains so suspended and is now also delinquent for the two most recent biennial registration periods. In February 2024, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) received a complaint of misconduct against respondent arising out of his failure to communicate with a client respecting the client's criminal matter. Based on respondent's failure to comply with its demands for information and records, as well as evidence uncovered during the course of its investigation, AGC now moves to suspend respondent during the pendency of its investigation (see Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9[a][3], [5] ). Respondent has not supplied a response to the motion to date.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ON MOTION

Attorney.

(Attorney Registration No. 1744333)

Calendar Date: May 18, 2026

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Per Curiam.

Pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9(a), “[a] respondent may be suspended from practice on an interim basis during the pendency of an investigation or proceeding ․ upon a finding by the Court that the respondent has engaged in conduct immediately threatening the public interest.” Such a finding may be premised upon “the respondent's failure to comply with a lawful demand of the Court or a Committee in an investigation or proceeding” (Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9[a][3] ) or upon “uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct” (Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9[a][5] ).

Clark, J.P., Aarons, McShan, Powers and Corcoran, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the motion by the Attorney Grievance for the Third Judicial Department is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court (see generally Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16); and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys and shall duly certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15); and it is further

ORDERED that respondent's failure to respond or to appear for further investigatory and disciplinary proceedings within six months of the date of this decision may result in his disbarment by the Court without further notice (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9[b] ).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network