In re Attorneys of Violation of Judiciary Law

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Attorneys of Violation of Judiciary Law

59 A.D.3d 780, 871 N.Y.S.2d 922

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 5, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Mark S. Ochs, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany, for petitioner. Mark W. Mancinelli, New York City, respondent pro se. Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1992, was suspended by this Court’s order dated June 7, 1999 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (262 AD2d 702 [1999]).

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (see 22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application.

Respondent’s application is granted and he is ordered reinstated, effective immediately.

Cardona, PJ., Mercure, Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mark S. Ochs, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany, for petitioner. Mark W. Mancinelli, New York City, respondent pro se. Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1992, was suspended by this Court’s order dated June 7, 1999 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (262 AD2d 702 [1999]).

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (see 22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application.

Respondent’s application is granted and he is ordered reinstated, effective immediately.

Cardona, PJ., Mercure, Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application 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.

In re Attorneys of Violation of Judiciary Law, 59 A.D.3d 780, 871 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

59 A.D.3d 780 (In re Attorneys of Violation of Judiciary Law) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related