Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Abramson)

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law  468-a. (Abramson) 2020 NY Slip Op 08152 Decided on December 31, 2020 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 31, 2020
PM-179-20

[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Elizabeth Debra Abramson, Also Known as Elizabeth D. Abramson-Isser, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2627537.)

Calendar Date: November 23, 2020
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Mulvey and Colangelo, JJ.

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

Elizabeth D. Abramson-Isser, Westfield, New Jersey, respondent pro se.

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1994 and presently lists a business address with the Office of Court Administration in New Jersey, where she is also admitted to practice. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in this state by October 2007 order of this Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from her noncompliance with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 beginning in 1998 (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 44 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2007]). Although respondent retroactively cured her registration delinquency in April 2017, she remained suspended in this state and did not immediately seek reinstatement. Respondent now moves for her reinstatement by motion marked returnable on the adjourned date of November 23, 2020. Petitioner opposes respondent's application based upon certain identified deficiencies in respondent's submission; however, respondent has since submitted additional documentation seeking to address petitioner's concerns.[FN1]

We initially note that respondent has satisfied the procedural requirements for an attorney seeking reinstatement to the practice of law from a suspension of more than six months (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Nenninger], 180 AD3d 1317, 1318 [2020]) by, among other things, submitting a sworn affidavit in the proper form set forth in appendix C to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]). Further, she has submitted sufficient threshold documentation in support of her application, including proof that she successfully completed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination as required (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]; compare Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §

468-a [Castle], 161 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2018]). Finally, we determine that respondent has satisfied the three-part test applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspension or disbarment (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Patel], 187 AD3d 1489, 1490 [2020]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), in that her application properly demonstrates her compliance with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, that she clearly and convincingly possesses the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law and that it would be in the public's interest to reinstate her to the practice of law in New York (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Hermanson], 188 AD3d 1555, ___, 132 NYS3d 896, 897 [2020]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Wilson], 186 AD3d 1874, 1875 [2020]). Accordingly, we grant respondent's motion.

Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Mulvey and Colangelo, JJ., concur[*2].

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 in the State of New York, effective immediately.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: Finding no open claims, the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection has advised that it defers to this Court's discretion regarding respondent's application.