In re Oswald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Oswald

135 A.D.3d 1154, 22 N.Y.S.3d 918

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 2016

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.3d 1154 (In re Oswald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Oswald, 135 A.D.3d 1154, 22 N.Y.S.3d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was disbarred by this Court in 2007 (46 AD3d 1327 [2007]). By application filed January 26, 2015, respondent applied for reinstatement. Petitioner opposes the motion. By report dated December 2, 2015, a subcommittee of the Committee on Character and Fitness, to whom respondent’s application for reinstatement was referred (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12 [b]), recommended, by a 2-to-l vote, that respondent’s reinstatement application be granted, albeit with multiple restrictions.

Upon our review of, among other things, respondent’s application and subcommittee testimony, we find that respondent has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that he possesses the requisite character and fitness to resume the practice of law (see Matter of Krouner, 84 AD3d 1585 [2011]; Matter of Wong, 34 AD3d 918 [2006]). Accordingly, the application for reinstatement is denied.

McCarthy, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is denied.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was disbarred by this Court in 2007 (46 AD3d 1327 [2007]). By application filed January 26, 2015, respondent applied for reinstatement. Petitioner opposes the motion. By report dated December 2, 2015, a subcommittee of the Committee on Character and Fitness, to whom respondent’s application for reinstatement was referred (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12 [b]), recommended, by a 2-to-l vote, that respondent’s reinstatement application be granted, albeit with multiple restrictions.

Upon our review of, among other things, respondent’s application and subcommittee testimony, we find that respondent has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that he possesses the requisite character and fitness to resume the practice of law (see Matter of Krouner, 84 AD3d 1585 [2011]; Matter of Wong, 34 AD3d 918 [2006]). Accordingly, the application for reinstatement is denied.

McCarthy, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.3d 1154, 22 N.Y.S.3d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-oswald-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack