Matter of Koziol

Matter of Koziol 2015 NY Slip Op 09166 Decided on December 10, 2015 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: December 10, 2015

[*1]In the Matter of LEON R. KOZIOL, a Suspended Attorney. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, Petitioner; LEON R. KOZIOL, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2075455)

Calendar Date: November 23, 2015
Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany (Michael G. Gaynor of counsel), for petitioner.

Leon R. Koziol, New Hartford, respondent pro se.

Per Curiam

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department in 1986. He maintained an office for the practice of law in the City of Utica, Oneida County.

As relevant herein, respondent, who has a lengthy disciplinary history, remains subject to both a one-year suspension from the practice of law imposed by this Court in September 2010 (Matter of Koziol, 76 AD3d 1136 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 943 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 853 [2011], cert denied sub nom. Koziol v Grievance Committee of Fifth Jud. Dist.

of N.Y., ___ US ___, 132 S Ct 455 [2011]) and a six-month suspension we imposed in June 2013 (Matter of Koziol, 107 AD3d 1137 [2013], lv dismissed and denied 21 NY3d 1056 [2013], cert denied ___ US ___, 134 S Ct 1038 [2014]). Respondent's most recent applications to this Court seeking reinstatement were denied in January 2013 and May 2014.

By application sworn to June 24, 2015, respondent now reapplies for reinstatement. By letter with enclosures dated October 22, 2015, petitioner advises that it opposes respondent's application.

Upon review of the submissions and consideration of all the circumstances in the record [*2]before us, we conclude that respondent has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he has fully complied with the provisions of the order suspending him and, further, that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12 [b]). Accordingly, we deny his current application for reinstatement.

Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the application for reinstatement is denied.