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

2025 NY Slip Op 06379

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: PM-263-25
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Battisti) (2025 NY Slip Op 06379)

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

2025 NY Slip Op 06379

Decided on November 20, 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:November 20, 2025

PM-263-25

[*1]In the Matter Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; John James Battisti Jr., Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4711123.)

Calendar Date:November 10, 2025
Before:Reynolds Fitzgerald, 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.

John James Battisti Jr., Falls Church, Virginia, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706, 1711 [3d Dept 2019]; see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's affidavit sworn to October 7, 2025, his supplemental correspondence of October 15, 2025 and November 1, 2025, and the October 27, 2025 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the rules of this Court, (2) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (3) 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]), we grant his motion for reinstatement.^[FN1]

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.

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P., Lynch, Fisher, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: In light of respondent's active-duty military status, among other considerations, we conclude that he has demonstrated his entitlement to a waiver of the requirements of Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16 (c) (5) (see Military Law § 308-a).