Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Verheyden)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Verheyden)

2017 NY Slip Op 5673, 152 A.D.3d 949, 55 N.Y.S.3d 678

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 13, 2017·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this *950 Court in 2003 and lists a business address in Uster, Switzerland with the Office of Court Administration. By 2014 order, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law in New York due to conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 (113 AD3d 1020, 1055 [2014]; see Judiciary Law § 468-a [5]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]). By correspondence to this Court, respondent has requested his reinstatement (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a]) and, by correspondence from its Chief Attorney, petitioner objects to respondent’s request.

In addition to other requirements (see Matter of Edelstein, 150 AD3d 1531 [2017]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), an applicant for reinstatement must, as a threshold matter, support his or her application with certain required documentation (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]). Here, respondent failed to submit a sworn affidavit as has been consistently required by this Court and is now mandated by the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters. * Further, the statements provided in respondent’s correspondence are unsworn, not executed before a notary or other officer and give no assurance that they were made in contemplation of their legal significance (see Matter of Lee, 148 AD3d 1454 [2017]). Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, we cannot excuse the defects in respondent’s application, and it must therefore be denied (see id.).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Clark, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that respondent’s motion for reinstatement is denied.

*

Respondent has not answered correspondence from petitioner notifying him of the deficiencies in his application.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this *950 Court in 2003 and lists a business address in Uster, Switzerland with the Office of Court Administration. By 2014 order, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law in New York due to conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 (113 AD3d 1020, 1055 [2014]; see Judiciary Law § 468-a [5]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]). By correspondence to this Court, respondent has requested his reinstatement (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a]) and, by correspondence from its Chief Attorney, petitioner objects to respondent’s request.

In addition to other requirements (see Matter of Edelstein, 150 AD3d 1531 [2017]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), an applicant for reinstatement must, as a threshold matter, support his or her application with certain required documentation (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]). Here, respondent failed to submit a sworn affidavit as has been consistently required by this Court and is now mandated by the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters. * Further, the statements provided in respondent’s correspondence are unsworn, not executed before a notary or other officer and give no assurance that they were made in contemplation of their legal significance (see Matter of Lee, 148 AD3d 1454 [2017]). Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, we cannot excuse the defects in respondent’s application, and it must therefore be denied (see id.).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Clark, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that respondent’s motion for reinstatement is denied.

*

Respondent has not answered correspondence from petitioner notifying him of the deficiencies in his application.

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Verheyden), 2017 NY Slip Op 5673, 152 A.D.3d 949, 55 N.Y.S.3d 678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 5673 (Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Verheyden)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related