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

2022 NY Slip Op 01224

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: February 24, 2022
• Docket: PM-34-22
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law  468-a (Hamra-Krouha)

2022 NY Slip Op 01224

Decided on February 24, 2022

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:February 24, 2022

PM-34-22

[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Mohamed Hamra-Krouha, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4397485.)

Calendar Date:January 24, 2022
Before:Garry, P.J., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ.

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC, New York City (Tyler Maulsby of counsel), for respondent.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by October 2021 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 198 AD3d 1068, 1076 [2021]; see Rules for Attorney 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 December 15, 2021, and the January 18, 2022 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 Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Toussaint], 196 AD3d 830, 830-831 [2021]), 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, effectively immediately.

Garry, P.J., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ., concur.