Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Bibliowicz-Gottlieb)

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law  468-a (Bibliowicz-Gottlieb) 2019 NY Slip Op 07474 Decided on October 17, 2019 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: October 17, 2019
PM-159-19

[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Malky Bibliowicz-Gottlieb, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4249132.)

Calendar Date: October 7, 2019
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Mulvey, Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Buckley LLP (Andrew W. Schilling of counsel), New York City, for respondent.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating her to the practice of law following her suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706 [2019]; see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's affirmation with exhibits dated August 22, 2019,[FN1] and upon reading the responsive correspondence by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department dated October 3, 2019, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, (2) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (3) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Stonner], 175 AD3d 799 [2019]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Dorsett], 174 AD3d 1219 [2019]), it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effectively immediately.

Egan Jr., J.P., Mulvey, Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: Although this Court has accepted respondent's submission, we note that the requirement that a suspended attorney in these circumstances submit a notarized affidavit is specifically set forth in Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.16 (d) (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] part 1240, appendix D) and no request for permission to deviate from this requirement was submitted by respondent.