Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019

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

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Natiello)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 17, 2019
2019 NY Slip Op 7476
Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Natiello)

Opinion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Natiello) (2019 NY Slip Op 07476)
Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law 468-a (Natiello)
2019 NY Slip Op 07476
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-161-19

[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Michael Francis Natiello, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2468320.)


Calendar Date: September 30, 2019
Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Mulvey and Devine, JJ., concur.

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

Michael Francis Natiello, Montclair, New Jersey, respondent pro se.



Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706, 1743 [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 notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to August 23, 2019, and upon reading the September 27, 2019 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, 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 [Zerdan], 173 AD3d 1602, 1603 [2019]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Serbinowski], 164 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2018]), 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.

Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Mulvey and Devine, JJ., concur.



Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.