Court Opinion

ID: 9963717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 01:09:58.794847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:57.124575
License: Public Domain

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Plant) (2024 NY Slip Op 02250)

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

2024 NY Slip Op 02250

Decided on April 25, 2024

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:April 25, 2024

PM-76-24
[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Eric Ryan Plant, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4345534.)

Calendar Date:March 4, 2024

Before:Garry, P.J., Lynch, Ceresia, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur. 

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.
Norris McLaughlin, P.A., New York City (Danielle M. DeFilippis 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, 1083 [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 notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to January 25, 2024, affirmation of counsel and exhibits dated February 22, 2024 and respondent's affidavit with exhibits sworn to March 8, 2024, and the March 1, 2024 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 Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]),[FN1] 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.
Garry, P.J., Lynch, Ceresia, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

Footnote 1: In light of respondent's provision of proof of his satisfactory passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam, among other things, we excuse his noncompliance with Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16 (c) (5) (i) (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Lee], 224 AD3d 1213, 1214 n [3d Dept 2024]).