Matter of Leibowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Leibowitz

139 A.D.3d 1316, 30 N.Y.S.3d 596

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

DecidedMay 19, 2016

DocketD-29-16

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 1316 (Matter of Leibowitz) 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 Leibowitz, 139 A.D.3d 1316, 30 N.Y.S.3d 596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*1317 Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2008 and currently resides in Silver Springs, Maryland. In December 2009, respondent pleaded guilty to the federal felony of disclosure of classified information, in violation of 18 USC § 798 (a) (3), and admitted to providing classified information gained in his role as an FBI linguist to an individual who hosted a public Internet blog. This Court determined that respondent had committed a “serious crime” (see Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [d]; 72 AD3d 1190 [2010]) and, by decision entered October 21, 2010, suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of three years (77 AD3d 1167 [2010]). By application sworn to December 9, 2015, respondent now applies for reinstatement. By letter with enclosures dated March 31, 2016, petitioner advises that it opposes respondent’s application, to which respondent has replied.

Upon review of the submissions and in consideration of the circumstances in the record before us, we conclude that respondent has not established by clear and convincing evidence that he has fully complied with the provisions of the order suspending him (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12 [b]; see also Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.9 [a], [e]). Accordingly, we deny his application for reinstatement.

McCarthy, J.R, Egan Jr., Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the application for reinstatement is denied.

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

*1317 Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2008 and currently resides in Silver Springs, Maryland. In December 2009, respondent pleaded guilty to the federal felony of disclosure of classified information, in violation of 18 USC § 798 (a) (3), and admitted to providing classified information gained in his role as an FBI linguist to an individual who hosted a public Internet blog. This Court determined that respondent had committed a “serious crime” (see Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [d]; 72 AD3d 1190 [2010]) and, by decision entered October 21, 2010, suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of three years (77 AD3d 1167 [2010]). By application sworn to December 9, 2015, respondent now applies for reinstatement. By letter with enclosures dated March 31, 2016, petitioner advises that it opposes respondent’s application, to which respondent has replied.

Upon review of the submissions and in consideration of the circumstances in the record before us, we conclude that respondent has not established by clear and convincing evidence that he has fully complied with the provisions of the order suspending him (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12 [b]; see also Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.9 [a], [e]). Accordingly, we deny his application for reinstatement.

McCarthy, J.R, Egan Jr., Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the application for reinstatement is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 1316, 30 N.Y.S.3d 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-leibowitz-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack