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

2025 NY Slip Op 04829

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: PM-184-25
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Horgan) (2025 NY Slip Op 04829)

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

2025 NY Slip Op 04829

Decided on August 28, 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:August 28, 2025

PM-184-25

[*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; Christopher James Horgan, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2835379.)

Calendar Date:July 28, 2025
Before:Aarons, J.P., Pritzker, Lynch, Ceresia and Mackey, JJ., concur.

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

Christopher James Horgan, San Jose, California, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by October 2007 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 44 AD3d 1246, 1247 [3d Dept 2007]; 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 April 16, 2025 and the July 21, 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 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]),^[FN1] 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.

Aarons, J.P., Pritzker, Lynch, Ceresia and Mackey, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: In light of respondent's provision of proof of his satisfactory passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam, among other things, we excuse his noncompliance with Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16 (c) (5) (i) (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Lee], 224 AD3d 1213, 1214 n [3d Dept 2024]).