Court Opinion

ID: 6800433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-21 17:08:07.648079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:03:10.522823
License: Public Domain

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Barbatano) (2022 NY Slip Op 04689)

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Barbatano)

2022 NY Slip Op 04689

Decided on July 21, 2022

Appellate Division, Third Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered:July 21, 2022

PM-127-22
[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Salvatore Anthony Barbatano, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4485660.)

Calendar Date:June 27, 2022

Before:Lynch, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Fisher and McShan, JJ.

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.
Law Offices of Sarah Diane McShea, New York City (Sarah Diane McShea of counsel), for respondent.

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 AD3d 1068, 1071 [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, the affidavit and reply affidavit with exhibits sworn to by respondent on January 28, 2022 and April 8, 2022, respectively, and upon reading the March 3, 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 [Nenninger], 180 AD3d 1317, 1317-1318 [2020]), 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, effectively immediately.
Lynch, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Fisher and McShan, JJ., concur.