Opinion
PM–167–22
09-29-2022
In the MATTER OF Stephen Louis MOLINSEK, a Suspended Attorney. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; v. Stephen Louis Molinsek, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2401313)
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for petitioner. Hinckley Allen, Albany (Christopher Fenlon of counsel), for respondent.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for petitioner.
Hinckley Allen, Albany (Christopher Fenlon of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and McShan, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1991 and presently lists an Albany County business address with the Office of Court Administration. In March 2021, petitioner commenced this disciplinary proceeding alleging, among other things, that respondent had engaged in professional misconduct stemming from his sexual relationship with a domestic relations client. Subsequently, by January 2022 order, this Court granted the parties’ joint motion seeking to resolve the petition upon consent, determined that respondent violated Rules of Professional Conduct ( 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ) rules 1.8(j)(1)(iii) and 8.4(h), and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of six months and until further order of this Court ( 201 A.D.3d 1244, 157 N.Y.S.3d 399 [3d Dept. 2022] ). Respondent now applies for his reinstatement and petitioner has submitted correspondence in response, stating that it does not oppose his application and defers to this Court's discretion as to the merits of the motion.
Likewise, the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection advises that there are no open claims against respondent and that it has no objection to his reinstatement.
Initially, we note that respondent has properly submitted a duly-sworn affidavit in the form provided in appendix D to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (see Matter of Jing Tan, 164 A.D.3d 1515, 1517–1518, 82 N.Y.S.3d 272 [3d Dept. 2018] ; see also Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [d]). Respondent also submitted a timely affidavit of compliance wherein he attested to his compliance with the suspension order and Rules of this Court governing the conduct of suspended attorneys (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.15 [f]).
Upon our review of respondent's submissions, we conclude that he has established by clear and convincing evidence that he has satisfied the three-part test applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from a disciplinary suspension (see Matter of Njogu, 175 A.D.3d 800, 800–801, 104 N.Y.S.3d 797 [3d Dept. 2019] ). Specifically, we find that respondent has demonstrated his compliance with the order of suspension, that he has the character and fitness to resume the practice of law and that his reinstatement would be in the public interest (see Matter of Matemu, 203 A.D.3d 1544, 1545, 165 N.Y.S.3d 195 [3d Dept. 2022] ; Matter of Couloute, 175 A.D.3d 1717, 1718–1719, 106 N.Y.S.3d 650 [3d Dept. 2019] ). We therefore grant respondent's application and reinstate him to the practice of law (see Matter of Chechelnitsky, 194 A.D.3d 1241, 1242, 145 N.Y.S.3d 687 [3d Dept. 2021] ).
Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and McShan, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that respondent's application for reinstatement is granted; and is further
ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.