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

2024 NY Slip Op 04292

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: August 22, 2024
• Docket: PM-168-24
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Chin Cheung) (2024 NY Slip Op 04292)

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

2024 NY Slip Op 04292

Decided on August 22, 2024

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:August 22, 2024

PM-168-24

[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Chin Cheung, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 3934817.)

Calendar Date:July 29, 2024
Before:Pritzker, J.P., Ceresia, McShan, Powers and Mackey, JJ., concur.

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

Chin Cheung, El Paso, Texas, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating her to the practice of law following her suspension by September 2009 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 65 AD3d 1447, 1453 [3d Dept 2009]; 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 June 26, 2024 and the July 25, 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., Ceresia, McShan, Powers and Mackey, JJ., concur.