Opinion
12-10-2015
In the Matter of Leon R. KOZIOL, a Suspended Attorney.Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner;Leon R. Koziol, Respondent.
Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany (Michael G. Gaynor of counsel), for petitioner. Leon R. Koziol, New Hartford, respondent pro se.
Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany (Michael G. Gaynor of counsel), for petitioner.
Leon R. Koziol, New Hartford, respondent pro se.
Before: GARRY, J.P., EGAN JR., ROSE, LYNCH and DEVINE, JJ.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department in 1986. He maintained an office for the practice of law in the City of Utica, Oneida County.
As relevant herein, respondent, who has a lengthy disciplinary history, remains subject to both a one-year suspension from the practice of law imposed by this Court in September 2010 (Matter of Koziol, 76 A.D.3d 1136, 907 N.Y.S.2d 697 [2010], lv. dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 943, 915 N.Y.S.2d 214, 940 N.E.2d 920 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 853, 922 N.Y.S.2d 267, 947 N.E.2d 159 [2011], cert. denied sub nom. Koziol v. Grievance Committee of Fifth Jud. Dist. of N.Y., ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 455, 181 L.Ed.2d 295 [2011] ) and a six-month suspension we imposed in June 2013 (Matter of Koziol, 107 A.D.3d 1137, 965 N.Y.S.2d 897 [2013], lv. dismissed and denied 21 N.Y.3d 1056, 974 N.Y.S.2d 26, 996 N.E.2d 907 [2013], cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1038, 188 L.Ed.2d 122 [2014] ). Respondent's most recent applications to this Court seeking reinstatement were denied in January 2013 and May 2014.
By application sworn to June 24, 2015, respondent now reapplies for reinstatement. By letter with enclosures dated October 22, 2015, petitioner advises that it opposes respondent's application.
Upon review of the submissions and consideration of all the circumstances in the record before us, we conclude that respondent has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he has fully complied with the provisions of the order suspending him and, further, that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law (see Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept. [22 NYCRR] § 806.12[b] ). Accordingly, we deny his current application for reinstatement.
ORDERED that the application for reinstatement is denied.
GARRY, J.P., EGAN JR., ROSE, LYNCH and DEVINE, JJ., concur.