From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

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

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Feb 24, 2022
202 A.D.3d 1429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Opinion

PM-34-22

02-24-2022

In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468-A. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; v. Mohamed Hamra-Krouha, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4397485)

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department. Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC, New York City (Tyler Maulsby of counsel), for respondent.


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

Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC, New York City (Tyler Maulsby of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ.

DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by October 2021 order of this Court ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 198 A.D.3d 1068, 1076, 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 notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to December 15, 2021, and the January 18, 2022 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, 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 [Toussaint], 196 A.D.3d 830, 830–831, 146 N.Y.S.3d 861 [2021] ), it is

Garry, P.J., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, 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, effectively immediately.


Summaries of

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

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Feb 24, 2022
202 A.D.3d 1429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
Case details for

Attorney Grievance Comm. for the Third Judicial Dep't v. Hamra-Krouha (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: Feb 24, 2022

Citations

202 A.D.3d 1429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
159 N.Y.S.3d 924