From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Att'y Grievance Comm. v. Shin (In re Att'y in Violation of Jud. L. § 468-A)

New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Apr 25, 2024
226 A.D.3d 1298 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

Opinion

Attorney Registration No. 4091294

04-25-2024

In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468-A. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; v. Catherine Sunae Shin, Respondent.

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department. Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP, White Plains (Randall Tesser of counsel), for respondent.


Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP, White Plains (Randall Tesser of counsel), for respondent.

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, 1085, 154 N.Y.S.3d 677 [3d Dept. 2021]; see Rules for Atty 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 January 31, 2024, and the March 4, 2024 correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has satisfied the requirements of Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16 (c) (5), (2) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the rules of this Court, (3) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (4) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), 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, effective immediately.

Pritzker, J.P., Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher and Powers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Att'y Grievance Comm. v. Shin (In re Att'y in Violation of Jud. L. § 468-A)

New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Apr 25, 2024
226 A.D.3d 1298 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)
Case details for

Att'y Grievance Comm. v. Shin (In re Att'y in Violation of Jud. L. § 468-A)

Case Details

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

Court:New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Date published: Apr 25, 2024

Citations

226 A.D.3d 1298 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)
209 N.Y.S.3d 662