Matter of Brollesy

Matter of Brollesy 2016 NY Slip Op 01385 Decided on February 25, 2016 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: February 25, 2016

[*1]In the Matter of HANY S. BROLLESY, a Suspended Attorney. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, Petitioner; HANY S. BROLLESY, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2679249)

Calendar Date: August 7, 2015
Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ.

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany, for petitioner.

Hany S. Brollesy, Matawan, New Jersey, respondent pro se.

Per Curiam

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1995. He was previously admitted in New Jersey in 1994, where he maintains an office for the practice of law.

By decision of this Court, decided and entered March 6, 2014, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year (115 AD3d 1052 [2014]). He now applies for reinstatement. We referred the application to a subcommittee for the Committee on Character and Fitness for a report pursuant to

Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.12 (b). Respondent appeared before the subcommittee in November 2015, and the subcommittee subsequently issued a report recommending a denial of his application for reinstatement. Respondent has been heard in response to the recommendation.

Upon our review of, among other things, respondent's application, his submissions, the testimony before the subcommittee and the subcommittee's report and recommendation, we conclude that respondent has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the requisite character and general fitness to resume the practice of law (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12 [b]; Matter of Oswald, 135 AD3d 1154, ___, 22 NYS3d 918, 919 [*2][2015]). Specifically, we are not persuaded that respondent has adequately addressed the factors that he acknowledges contributed to his underlying misconduct and suspension from the practice of law. Accordingly, we deny his application for reinstatement.

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that respondent's application for reinstatement is denied.