Matter of Hogan

Matter of Hogan 2017 NY Slip Op 01261 Decided on February 16, 2017 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 16, 2017

[*1]In the Matter of MATTHEW S.

HOGAN, a Disbarred Attorney. ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE THE THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, Petitioner; MATTHEW S. HOGAN, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2141539) Calendar Date: February 8, 2017
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Michael G. Gaynor of counsel), for petitioner.

Matthew S. Hogan, Saratoga Springs, respondent pro se.

DECISION AND ORDER FOR

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1987. He formerly maintained an office for the practice of law in the City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, but was disbarred by this Court in 2008 (56 AD3d 887 [2008]). By application sworn to November 7, 2016, respondent has moved for reinstatement. Petitioner opposes respondent's motion. The Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection also opposes the application, noting that, between 2009 and 2011, it paid 13 awards of reimbursement to

respondent's former clients in the total amount of $28,845; nevertheless, respondent has failed to make any reimbursement payments.

Upon our review of, among other things, respondent's motion for reinstatement and the materials submitted in opposition thereto, we find that respondent has failed to sufficiently demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that he possesses the requisite character and fitness to resume the practice of law or that his reinstatement would be in the public interest (see Uniform Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]). Accordingly, respondent's motion is denied.

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that respondent's application for reinstatement is denied.