Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Hodge)
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Hodge)
2026 NY Slip Op 04549
July 23, 2026
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Joy Elizabeth Hodge, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4636650.)
Decided and Entered:July 23, 2026
PM-151-26
Calendar Date: June 29, 2026
Before: Garry, P.J., Mcshan, Powers, Corcoran And Ryba, 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.
Brach Eichler LLC, Roseland, New Jersey (Anthony M. Rainone of counsel), for respondentl
Motion by respondent for an order reinstating her to the practice of law following her suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706, 1728 [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 notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to May 21, 2026 and the June 29, 2026 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, we have 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]). Notwithstanding her satisfaction of the substantive requirements for reinstatement, we direct respondent to provide documentary proof of her completion of the requisite continuing legal education credits as outlined in paragraph 18 of her supporting affidavit sworn to May 21, 2026 to both this Court and the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department within 60 days of this Court's order (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [c] [5]; see also Rules of App Div, All Depts [22 NYCRR] § 1500.2 [c], [d], [e], [g], [h]). Accordingly, 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, subject to the conditions set forth in this decision.FN1
Garry, P.J., McShan, Powers, Corcoran and Ryba, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
Respondent is also reminded that she has an affirmative duty to keep the Office of Court Administration apprised of her up-to-date contact information (see Rules of Chief Admr of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1 [f]).
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Hodge) (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Hodge)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.