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

2025 NY Slip Op 07361

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: December 31, 2025
• Docket: PM-290-25
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Kazantsev) (2025 NY Slip Op 07361)

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

2025 NY Slip Op 07361

Decided on December 31, 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:December 31, 2025

PM-290-25

[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Mikhail Sergeevich Kazantsev, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 5351374.)

Calendar Date:December 8, 2025
Before:Garry, P.J., Clark, Fisher, Powers and Corcoran, JJ., concur.

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

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, New York City (Emiliano M. De Luca 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, 1078 [3d Dept 2021]; 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 September 30, 2025, the December 1, 2025 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department and respondent's supplemental correspondence of December 2, 2025, 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.

Garry, P.J., Clark, Fisher, Powers and Corcoran, JJ., concur.