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

2019 NY Slip Op 9083

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: December 19, 2019
• Docket: PM-234-19
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (McDaniel) (2019 NY Slip Op 09083)

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

2019 NY Slip Op 09083

Decided on December 19, 2019

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 19, 2019

PM-234-19

[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Darrell Roy McDaniel, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4001756.)

Calendar Date: December 2, 2019
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ., concur.

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

Darrell Roy McDaniel, Henley Beach, Australia, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706, 1740 [2019]; see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's affidavit with exhibits sworn to October 4, 2019, and upon reading the responsive correspondence by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department dated November 21, 2019, 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 [Stonner], 175 AD3d 799 [2019]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Dorsett], 174 AD3d 1219 [2019]), 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.

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ., concur.