Matter of Macero
Annotate this CaseDecided and Entered: March 14, 2013
[*1]In the Matter of ROSEMARY A. MACERO, a Suspended Attorney. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, Petitioner; ROSEMARY A. MACERO, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2209070)
Calendar Date: February 11, 2013
Before: Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Spain and McCarthy, JJ.
Peter M. Torncello, Committee on Professional
Standards, Albany (Jevon L. Garrett of counsel), for petitioner.
Englert, Coffey, McHugh & Fantauzzi, LLP,
Schenectady (Peter V. Coffey of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1988. She maintained an office for the practice of law in Massachusetts, where she was admitted to practice in 1985.
By decision dated August 4, 2011, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year based upon her prior one-year suspension by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Matter of Macero, 87 AD3d 793 [2011]). The Massachusetts court reinstated respondent to the practice of law by order dated May 4, 2012. Respondent now applies for reinstatement. Petitioner advises that it does not oppose the application.
Our examination of the papers submitted on the application indicates that respondent has complied with the provisions of the order of suspension and with this Court's rules regarding the conduct of suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 806.9). We are also satisfied that respondent has complied with the requirements of this Court's rules regarding reinstatement (see 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]), and that she possesses the character and general fitness to resume the [*2]practice of law.
Accordingly, the application is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, effective immediately.
Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Spain and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that respondent's application is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.