Matter of Herzog

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Herzog

145 A.D.3d 1315, 41 N.Y.S.3d 926

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2016

DocketD-71-16

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 145 A.D.3d 1315 (Matter of Herzog) 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 Herzog, 145 A.D.3d 1315, 41 N.Y.S.3d 926 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2001 and is a resident of Clinton County. Following respondent’s plea of guilty to a “serious crime” (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [d]), namely, two counts of forgery in the third degree, a class A misdemeanor (see Penal Law § 170.05), this Court disbarred respondent by order entered June 12, 2008 (52 AD3d 1019 [2008]). Respondent now applies for reinstatement. Petitioner does not oppose respondent’s application. We referred the application to a subcommittee of the Committee *1316 on Character and Fitness for a report (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a] [5]; see also Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] former § 806.12 [b]). Respondent appeared before the three-member subcommittee in October 2016, and the subcommittee subsequently issued a favorable report unanimously recommending that his application for reinstatement be granted.

Our examination of the papers submitted on the application indicates that respondent has made all proper disclosures and has complied with the provisions of the order of disbarment and with this Court’s rules regarding the conduct of disbarred attorneys (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] former § 806.9; see also Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15). Further, we are satisfied that respondent has complied with the requirements of the applicable rules regarding reinstatement (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] former § 806.12 [b]; see also Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16), and that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law in this state.

Accordingly, the application is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, effective immediately.

McCarthy, J.R, Garry, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, 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 2001 and is a resident of Clinton County. Following respondent’s plea of guilty to a “serious crime” (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [d]), namely, two counts of forgery in the third degree, a class A misdemeanor (see Penal Law § 170.05), this Court disbarred respondent by order entered June 12, 2008 (52 AD3d 1019 [2008]). Respondent now applies for reinstatement. Petitioner does not oppose respondent’s application. We referred the application to a subcommittee of the Committee *1316 on Character and Fitness for a report (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a] [5]; see also Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] former § 806.12 [b]). Respondent appeared before the three-member subcommittee in October 2016, and the subcommittee subsequently issued a favorable report unanimously recommending that his application for reinstatement be granted.

Our examination of the papers submitted on the application indicates that respondent has made all proper disclosures and has complied with the provisions of the order of disbarment and with this Court’s rules regarding the conduct of disbarred attorneys (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] former § 806.9; see also Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15). Further, we are satisfied that respondent has complied with the requirements of the applicable rules regarding reinstatement (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] former § 806.12 [b]; see also Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16), and that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law in this state.

Accordingly, the application is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, effective immediately.

McCarthy, J.R, Garry, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.3d 1315, 41 N.Y.S.3d 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-herzog-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack