Matter of Brollesy

136 A.D.3d 1273, 25 N.Y.S.3d 621

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: February 25, 2016
• Docket: D-17-16
• Status: Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1995. He was previously admitted in New Jersey in 1994, where he maintains an office for the practice of law.

By decision of this Court, decided and entered March 6, 2014, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year (115 AD3d 1052 [2014]). He now applies for reinstatement. We referred the application to a subcommittee for the Committee on Character and Fitness for a report pursuant to Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.12 (b). Respondent appeared before the subcommittee in November 2015, and the subcommittee subsequently issued a report recommending a denial of his application for reinstatement. Respondent has been heard in response to the recommendation.

Upon our review of, among other things, respondent’s application, his submissions, the testimony before the subcommittee and the subcommittee’s report and recommendation, we conclude that respondent has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the requisite character and general fitness to resume the practice of law (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12 [b]; Matter of Oswald, 135 AD3d 1154, 1154 [2016]). Specifically, we are not persuaded that respondent has adequately addressed the factors that he acknowledges contributed to his underlying misconduct and suspension from the practice of law. Accordingly, we deny his application for reinstatement.

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur.

Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is denied.