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

2026 NY Slip Op 00299

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 22, 2026
• Docket: PM-11-26
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Nolan) (2026 NY Slip Op 00299)

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

2026 NY Slip Op 00299

Decided on January 22, 2026

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:January 22, 2026

PM-11-26

[*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; Michael Kevin Nolan, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2772846.)

Calendar Date:January 5, 2026
Before:Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P., Ceresia, Fisher, Powers and Corcoran, JJ., concur.

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

Michael Kevin Nolan, Saddle River, New Jersey, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by January 2014 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 113 AD3d 1020, 1045 [3d Dept 2014]; 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 December 1, 2025, his supplemental affirmation with exhibits dated December 30, 2025 and the December 23, 2025 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined that respondent has not demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, his compliance with the rules of this Court (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a], Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [c] [5]), specifically his compliance with Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16 (c) (5) (i), we deny respondent's motion for reinstatement.

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is denied.

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P., Ceresia, Fisher, Powers and Corcoran, JJ., concur.