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

210 N.Y.3d 843, 2024 NY Slip Op 03224

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: June 13, 2024
• Docket: PM-119-24
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Shaban) (2024 NY Slip Op 03224)

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

2024 NY Slip Op 03224

Decided on June 13, 2024

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:June 13, 2024

PM-119-24

[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; John Thomas Shaban, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2672046.)

Calendar Date:May 6, 2024
Before:Aarons, J.P., Lynch, Ceresia, McShan and Mackey, 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.

John Thomas Shaban, Redding, Connecticut, respondent pro se.

Respondent moves for his reinstatement to the practice of law following his suspension by September 2022 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 208 AD3d 1421, 1441 [3d Dept 2022]; see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16). The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) opposes the motion and respondent has been heard in reply.

Upon reading respondent's affidavit sworn to January 5, 2024 and the responsive correspondence by AGC dated February 9, 2024 and May 7, 2024, we find that respondent has substantially met the requirements for reinstatement (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]); Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Sossner], 221 AD3d 1131, 1131 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Stone], 195 AD3d 1226, 1228 [3d Dept 2021]).^[FN1] Accordingly, we grant respondent's motion for reinstatement.

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., Lynch, Ceresia, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: At this time, we decline to weigh in on the substantive issues raised within AGC's opposition papers. However, by the same token, we also decline respondent's request that he be reinstated nunc pro tunc to September 1, 2022, the date of this Court's suspension order.