Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law ? 468-a (Bandhopadhya)

2025 NY Slip Op 00260

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 16, 2025
• Docket: PM-12-25
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Bandhopadhya) (2025 NY Slip Op 00260)

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Bandhopadhya)

2025 NY Slip Op 00260

Decided on January 16, 2025

Appellate Division, Third Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered:January 16, 2025

PM-12-25

[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Rupali Bandhopadhya, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 5536818.)

Calendar Date:December 9, 2024
Before:Pritzker, J.P., Lynch, Fisher, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur.

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.

Goodwin Procter, LLP, New York City (Richard Torres of counsel), for respondent.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating her to the practice of law following her suspension by September 2022 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 208 AD3d 1421, 1424 [3d Dept 2022]; see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to November 5, 2024 and the December 2, 2024 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has satisfied the requirements of Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16 (c) (5), (2) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the rules of this Court, (3) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (4) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), it is

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, effective immediately.

Pritzker, J.P., Lynch, Fisher, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur.