Opinion
PM-19-21
02-25-2021
In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468-A.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for petitioner. Kevin Joseph Catanzarite, California, respondent pro se.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for petitioner.
Kevin Joseph Catanzarite, California, respondent pro se.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1990 and presently maintains his own law firm in California, where he is also admitted to the practice of law. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in this state by January 2014 order of this Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his noncompliance with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468–a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 beginning in 2004 ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 113 A.D.3d 1020, 1026, 979 N.Y.S.2d 548 [2014] ). He cured his registration delinquency in March 2020 and now moves for his reinstatement by motion marked returnable on January 4, 2021, which motion petitioner opposes based upon certain identified deficiencies.
Finding no open claims against respondent, the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection has advised that it defers to this Court's discretion regarding respondent's application.
--------
We initially note that respondent has satisfied the procedural requirements for an attorney seeking reinstatement to the practice of law from a suspension of more than six months (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Nenninger], 180 A.D.3d 1317, 1318, 116 N.Y.S.3d 920 [2020] ) by, among other things, submitting a sworn affidavit in the proper form set forth in appendix C to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]). Further, he has submitted sufficient threshold documentation in support of his application, including proof that he successfully completed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination as required (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]; compare Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Castle], 161 A.D.3d 1443, 1444, 73 N.Y.S.3d 774 [2018] ). With respect to, among other things, respondent's failure to timely file the required affidavit of compliance following the order of suspension (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] part 1240, appendix C, ¶ 21), we find that the attestations included in his appendix C affidavit have sufficiently cured this defect (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.15 [c]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] part 1240, appendix C; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Kelly], 190 A.D.3d 1253, ––––, 139 N.Y.S.3d 728, [2021] ). Finally, we determine that respondent has satisfied the three-part test applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspension or disbarment (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Patel], 187 A.D.3d 1489, 1490, 131 N.Y.S.3d 653 [2020] ; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), in that his application properly demonstrates his compliance with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, that he clearly and convincingly possesses the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law and that it would be in the public's interest to reinstate him to the practice of law in New York (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Hermanson], 188 A.D.3d 1555, 1556, 132 N.Y.S.3d 896 ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Wilson], 186 A.D.3d 1874, 1875, 130 N.Y.S.3d 577 [2020] ). Accordingly, we grant respondent's motion.
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that respondent's motion 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.