Matter of Galvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Galvin

142 A.D.3d 1277, 38 N.Y.S.3d 443

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 29, 2016

DocketD-58-16

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 142 A.D.3d 1277 (Matter of Galvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Galvin, 142 A.D.3d 1277, 38 N.Y.S.3d 443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1974 and currently maintains an office for the practice of law in the Town of Bethlehem, Albany County.

By decision and order entered September 22, 2011, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of two years, but stayed the suspension upon certain conditions (87 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2011]). Subsequently, petitioner moved to vacate the stay of the suspension, alleging that respondent had not fully complied with this Court’s order. This Court thereafter, by order entered December 10, 2015, denied the motion to vacate, but nonetheless extended the stayed suspension for an additional year upon certain conditions (134 AD3d 1297 [2015]). Respondent now moves for termination of the stayed suspen *1278 sion and provides an affidavit attesting that she has fully complied with the conditions of the stay. Petitioner does not oppose the motion, which we now grant.

In doing so, we initially note that this Court’s extension of respondent’s stayed suspension is not set to expire until December 2016. Nevertheless, under the particular circumstances herein, we find no basis to treat respondent’s motion as premature. Respondent has provided satisfactory proof that she fulfilled all required conditions for reinstatement, including taking and passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam. Significantly, petitioner does not oppose respondent’s motion and indicates that respondent is in compliance with this Court’s directives. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to grant respondent’s request for immediate termination of her stayed suspension (see Matter of Paul, 120 AD3d 1462 [2014]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s motion is granted, and the stayed suspension imposed by this Court’s order entered September 22, 2011, as extended by order entered December 10, 2015, is terminated, effective immediately.

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 Court in 1974 and currently maintains an office for the practice of law in the Town of Bethlehem, Albany County.

By decision and order entered September 22, 2011, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of two years, but stayed the suspension upon certain conditions (87 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2011]). Subsequently, petitioner moved to vacate the stay of the suspension, alleging that respondent had not fully complied with this Court’s order. This Court thereafter, by order entered December 10, 2015, denied the motion to vacate, but nonetheless extended the stayed suspension for an additional year upon certain conditions (134 AD3d 1297 [2015]). Respondent now moves for termination of the stayed suspen *1278 sion and provides an affidavit attesting that she has fully complied with the conditions of the stay. Petitioner does not oppose the motion, which we now grant.

In doing so, we initially note that this Court’s extension of respondent’s stayed suspension is not set to expire until December 2016. Nevertheless, under the particular circumstances herein, we find no basis to treat respondent’s motion as premature. Respondent has provided satisfactory proof that she fulfilled all required conditions for reinstatement, including taking and passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam. Significantly, petitioner does not oppose respondent’s motion and indicates that respondent is in compliance with this Court’s directives. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to grant respondent’s request for immediate termination of her stayed suspension (see Matter of Paul, 120 AD3d 1462 [2014]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s motion is granted, and the stayed suspension imposed by this Court’s order entered September 22, 2011, as extended by order entered December 10, 2015, is terminated, effective immediately.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 1277, 38 N.Y.S.3d 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-galvin-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack