Court Opinion

ID: 9869580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 19:32:46.136025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:38.211349
License: Public Domain

Fahey, J.
(concurring). I respectfully concur in the result only. The majority refuses to conclude that Donald William Leo did not violate the Special Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department, embodied in 22 NYCRR 691.10 (c) and (d) (see majority op at 366). To clarify: Leo did not breach those rules.
*367The subject rules pertain only to the conduct of attorneys who are “disbarred, suspended or [who have] resigned” (22 NYCRR 691.10). At the time Leo gave the client notification in question, none of those classifications applied to him. Although Leo had submitted his resignation to the Appellate Division at the time the disputed notification had been made, that Court retained the discretion whether to accept Leo’s request to relinquish his law license, which it did not do until months after the communication in question.
If the submission of a letter of resignation was sufficient there would be no need for the Appellate Division to accept or reject it. The Appellate Division must clearly maintain the authority to accept a resignation or issue an order of disbarment.
In any event, on balance I agree with the majority “that there is evidence to sustain the decision of the Appellate Division” (Matter of Anonymous, 79 NY2d 782, 783 [1991]; see majority op at 366). “While one might disagree with the determination made by that court in this case, [w]e may not substitute our judgment on the merits for that of the Appellate Division” (Anonymous, 79 NY2d at 783 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Garcia concur; Judge Fahey concurs in result in a separate concurring opinion; Judge Rivera taking no part.
Order affirmed, without costs.