Opinion
PM-117-20
09-17-2020
In the MATTER OF Leon R. KOZIOL, a Suspended Attorney. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; v. Leon R. Koziol, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2075455)
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Michael G. Gaynor of counsel), for petitioner. Leon R. Koziol, New Hartford, respondent pro se.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Michael G. Gaynor of counsel), for petitioner.
Leon R. Koziol, New Hartford, respondent pro se.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS
Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department in 1986 and his disciplinary file was later transferred to this Court. By September 2010 order, this Court found respondent guilty of professional misconduct and imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law ( Matter of Koziol, 76 A.D.3d 1136, 907 N.Y.S.2d 434 [2010], appeal dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 943, 915 N.Y.S.2d 214, 940 N.E.2d 920 [2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 853, 922 N.Y.S.2d 267, 947 N.E.2d 159 [2011], cert denied 565 U.S. 963, 132 S.Ct. 455, 181 L.Ed.2d 295 [2011] ). Notably, the 2010 suspension was still in effect when this Court, by June 2013 order, found respondent guilty of further professional misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of six months ( Matter of Koziol, 107 A.D.3d 1137, 965 N.Y.S.2d 897 [2013], appeal dismissed, lv dismissed and denied 21 N.Y.3d 1056, 974 N.Y.S.2d 26, 996 N.E.2d 907 [2013], cert denied 571 U.S. 1176, 134 S. Ct. 1038, 188 L.Ed.2d 122 [2014] ). Both suspensions remain in full force and effect despite respondent's repeated unsuccessful applications for, among other things, reinstatement or vacatur of the suspension orders in January 2013, May 2014, December 2015 and April 2017 ( Matter of Koziol, 149 A.D.3d 1344, 49 N.Y.S.3d 925 [2017] ; Matter of Koziol, 134 A.D.3d 1298, 19 N.Y.S.3d 923 [2015], appeal dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 1136, 27 N.Y.S.3d 499, 47 N.E.3d 779 [2016] ).
Respondent now again seeks his reinstatement to the practice of law and he also separately moves for "orders in connection with the persecution of a civil rights attorney in a disciplinary case." Both motions have been marked returnable August 10, 2020. Petitioner opposes respondent's motions and cross-moves for an order enjoining respondent from filing any new motions or applications – aside from reinstatement applications – without first obtaining leave of this Court.
Initially, regarding respondent's reinstatement application, we note that he properly submits a sworn form affidavit applicable to attorneys suspended from the practice of law for longer than six months (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]; part 1240, appendix C; see e.g. Matter of Padilla, 167 A.D.3d 1413, 88 N.Y.S.3d 916 [2018] ), which includes proof that respondent successfully completed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b] ). Nevertheless, respondent's application lacks certain required proof and documentation, such as all copies of any filed income tax returns. Further, petitioner points out that the majority of respondent's statements in his affidavit are incomplete and/or unsupported. Of greatest concern, however, is the proof in the record that respondent remains in significant arrears in overdue child support payments, with the current amount totaling over of $36,000. Under these circumstances, we find that respondent's application for reinstatement must be denied (see Matter of Hogan, 174 A.D.3d 1221, 1222, 102 N.Y.S.3d 494 [2019] ; Matter of Courtney, 173 A.D.3d 1423, 1424, 100 N.Y.S.3d 582 [2019] ; see generally Judiciary Law § 90[2–a] ; Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [ 22 NYCRR] § 806.25 ). Moreover, any future application by respondent for reinstatement must include proof that his child support obligations have been satisfied.
Turning to the parties' remaining motions, we agree with petitioner that respondent's separate motion seeking diverse orders granting him, among other things, immediate reinstatement to the New York bar and the expungement of his disciplinary history are not only lacking in merit, but are substantially the same as previous motions brought by respondent that were also denied on the merits. Under the circumstances, we further grant petitioner's cross motion and enjoin respondent from bringing any motion, application or proceeding in this Court, other than an application for reinstatement pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.16 and Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16, without prior leave of this Court (see e.g. Matter of Marin, 162 A.D.3d 1198, 74 N.Y.S.3d 776 [2018] ; Matter of Shieh, 162 A.D.3d 1393, 75 N.Y.S.3d 441 [2018] ).
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that respondent's motions are denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the cross motion by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department is granted, and respondent is enjoined from bringing any motion, application or proceeding in this Court, other than an application for reinstatement pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.16 and Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16, without prior leave of this Court.