Matter of Krouner

220 N.Y.S.3d 518, 2024 NY Slip Op 05864

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: November 21, 2024
• Docket: PM-228-24
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Krouner (2024 NY Slip Op 05864)

Matter of Krouner

2024 NY Slip Op 05864

Decided on November 21, 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:November 21, 2024

PM-228-24

[*1]In the Matter of Leonard W. Krouner, an Attorney. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Leonard W. Krouner, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 1501154.)

Calendar Date:November 4, 2024
Before:Garry, P.J., Clark, Aarons, Pritzker and McShan, JJ., concur.

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Lauren S. Cousineau of counsel), for petitioner.

Leonard W. Krouner, Oceanside, California, respondent pro se.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1973 and previously maintained an office for the practice of law in the City of Albany. By May 2003 order, we struck respondent's name from the roll of attorneys due to his automatic disbarment after he pleaded guilty to three felonies in Albany County (305 AD2d 932 [3d Dept 2003]). Following three unsuccessful attempts at reinstatement (see 150 AD3d 1466 [3d Dept 2017]; 114 AD3d 993 [3d Dept 2014]; 84 AD3d 1585 [3d Dept 2011]), we ultimately granted respondent's fourth such application and reinstated him subject to certain conditions by June 13, 2019 order (173 AD3d 1428 [3d Dept 2019]). Pursuant to the dictates of that order, respondent now moves for termination of the conditions attendant to his reinstatement to the practice of law. Petitioner has been heard in response and does not oppose respondent's motion.

Upon respondent's motion, and upon examination of the papers submitted, we conclude that, under the circumstances presented, it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the conditions attendant to respondent's reinstatement set forth in the third decretal paragraph of this Court's June 13, 2019 Memorandum and Order on Motion are hereby terminated.

Garry, P.J., Clark, Aarons, Pritzker and McShan, JJ., concur.