From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Attorney Grievance Comm. for the Third Judicial Dep't v. de Aponte (In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-A)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 30, 2021
200 A.D.3d 1545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

PM-184-21

12-30-2021

In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468-A. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; v. Sara Raquel Paniagua de Aponte, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4949814)

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department. Sara Raquel Paniagua de Aponte, Lutz, Florida, respondent pro se.


Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Sara Raquel Paniagua de Aponte, Lutz, Florida, respondent pro se.

DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating her to the practice of law following her suspension by October 2021 order of this Court ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a , 198 A.D.3d 1068, 1083, 154 N.Y.S.3d 677 [2021] ; see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 ; Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [ 22 NYCRR] § 806.16 ).

Upon reading respondent's affidavit with exhibits sworn to October 21, 2021, and upon reading the responsive correspondence by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department dated November 17, 2021, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, (2) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (3) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Mohammed] , 179 A.D.3d 1437, 114 N.Y.S.3d 891 [2020] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Stonner] , 175 A.D.3d 799, 103 N.Y.S.3d 881 [2019] ), it is

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, effectively immediately.

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Aarons, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Attorney Grievance Comm. for the Third Judicial Dep't v. de Aponte (In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-A)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 30, 2021
200 A.D.3d 1545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Attorney Grievance Comm. for the Third Judicial Dep't v. de Aponte (In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-A)

Case Details

Full title:In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468-A. Attorney…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 30, 2021

Citations

200 A.D.3d 1545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
200 A.D.3d 1545