Case Name: In the Matter of Madeline Sheila Galvin, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-09-29
Citations: 142 A.D.3d 1277
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Madeline Sheila Galvin, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.
Judges: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s motion is granted, and the stayed suspension imposed by this Court’s order entered September 22, 2011, as extended by order entered December 10, 2015, is terminated, effective immediately.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 142
Pages: 1277–1278

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Madeline Sheila Galvin, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.
[38 NYS3d 443]

Opinion:
Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1974 and currently maintains an office for the practice of law in the Town of Bethlehem, Albany County.
By decision and order entered September 22, 2011, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of two years, but stayed the suspension upon certain conditions (87 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2011]). Subsequently, petitioner moved to vacate the stay of the suspension, alleging that respondent had not fully complied with this Court's order. This Court thereafter, by order entered December 10, 2015, denied the motion to vacate, but nonetheless extended the stayed suspension for an additional year upon certain conditions (134 AD3d 1297 [2015]). Respondent now moves for termination of the stayed suspen sion and provides an affidavit attesting that she has fully complied with the conditions of the stay. Petitioner does not oppose the motion, which we now grant.
In doing so, we initially note that this Court's extension of respondent's stayed suspension is not set to expire until December 2016. Nevertheless, under the particular circumstances herein, we find no basis to treat respondent's motion as premature. Respondent has provided satisfactory proof that she fulfilled all required conditions for reinstatement, including taking and passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam. Significantly, petitioner does not oppose respondent's motion and indicates that respondent is in compliance with this Court's directives. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to grant respondent's request for immediate termination of her stayed suspension (see Matter of Paul, 120 AD3d 1462 [2014]).
McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent's motion is granted, and the stayed suspension imposed by this Court's order entered September 22, 2011, as extended by order entered December 10, 2015, is terminated, effective immediately.