Matter of Sullivan
Cases that cite this one
36 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Matter of Cammarano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Matter of DeLorenzo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Matter of Rain (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Matter of Del Boccio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Kim) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Orihara) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Matter of Mariner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Matter of Kotsogiannis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Matter of Brammer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Matter of Paragano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Matter of Hogan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Moore) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Wright) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Matter of Becker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Bruhn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Nayak (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Pavlovic) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Policastro) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Gang) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Gang) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Marshall (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Matthews. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Eun Jung Kim) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Cammarano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Joon Woo Lee) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1990. He was previously admitted in New Jersey in 1983, where he maintained an office for the practice of law.
Respondent was disbarred by this Court in 2007 (43 AD3d 1270 [2007]). By application filed in November 2016, respondent moved for reinstatement. By report dated June 26, 2017, a subcommittee of the Committee on Character and Fitness, to whom respondent’s application for reinstatement had been referred (see Rules of App Div. 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a] [5]), recommended that respondent’s reinstatement application be denied.
Upon our review of, among other things, respondent’s application, subcommittee testimony and supplemental affidavit, we find that respondent has failed to sufficiently demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that his reinstatement “would be in the public interest” (Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]). In our view, in order to establish that his or her reinstatement is in the public interest, a suspended or disbarred attorney must provide assurances that no detriment would inure to the public by reason of the attorney’s return to practice, and that his or her reinstatement would be of some tangible benefit to the public. Here, respondent’s application failed to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of an attorney’s obligations to clients and what plans would be put in place to ensure no further transgressions of the Rules of Professional Conduct; nor did he, among other things, satisfactorily set forth information as to his future plans if reinstated (see e.g. Matter of Edelstein, 150 AD3d 1531, 1531-1532 [2017]). Accordingly, respondent’s motion is denied.
Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is denied.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.