Opinion
PM–134–22
07-21-2022
In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468–A. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; v. Kirsten A. Zochowski, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4077327)
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department. Kirsten A. Zochowski, Falls Church, Virginia, respondent pro se.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.
Kirsten A. Zochowski, Falls Church, Virginia, respondent pro se.
Before: Lynch, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Fisher and McShan, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court in 2002 and presently seeks reinstatement from the suspension imposed by this Court in October 2021 as a consequence of her failure to comply with Judiciary Law § 468–a for the 2016–2017, 2018–2019 and 2020–2021 biennial cycles ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a, 198 A.D.3d 1068, 1088, 154 N.Y.S.3d 677 [2021] ). Although respondent has resolved her preexisting registration delinquency, she has again become delinquent in her registration obligations while this matter has been pending (see Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [ 22 NYCRR] § 118.1 [c]), and she remains delinquent in such obligation for the 2022–2023 biennial period to date.
" ‘An attorney seeking reinstatement from suspension or disbarment must establish, as a threshold matter and by clear and convincing evidence, his or her compliance with both the order of suspension/disbarment and this Court's rules’ " ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Devlin], 197 A.D.3d 1431, 1431, 151 N.Y.S.3d 648 [2021], quoting Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Ostroskey], 151 A.D.3d 1377, 1378, 54 N.Y.S.3d 331 [2017] [citations omitted]). "To this end, ‘every attorney admitted to practice in New York, including those attorneys who have been suspended from practice, must continue to comply with the registration requirements’ of this state" ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Devlin], 197 A.D.3d at 1431, 151 N.Y.S.3d 648, quoting Matter of Castillo, 157 A.D.3d 1158, 1159 n. 3, 69 N.Y.S.3d 449 [2018] ; see Judiciary Law § 468–a ; Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [ 22 NYCRR] § 118.1 ). Inasmuch as respondent's new and extant registration delinquency again renders her subject to professional discipline, she cannot establish her entitlement to reinstatement at this time and her application must be denied (see Matter of Watson, 206 A.D.3d 1132, 167 N.Y.S.3d 412, 412 [2022] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Devlin], 197 A.D.3d at 1432, 151 N.Y.S.3d 648 ).
Lynch, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Fisher and McShan, JJ., concur. ORDERED that respondent's motion is denied.