Comm. on Prof'l Standards v. Nenninger (In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-A.)

• Decision Date: 27 February 2020
• Docket Number: PM-35-20
• Citation: 116 N.Y.S.3d 920 (Mem),180 A.D.3d 1317
• Parties: 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; v. Kyle Edward Nenninger, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 3036415)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

180 A.D.3d 1317

116 N.Y.S.3d 920 (Mem)

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;

v.Kyle Edward Nenninger, Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 3036415)

PM-35-20

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: January 27, 2020

Decided and Entered: February 27, 2020

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

Kyle Edward Nenninger, Wheaton, Illinois, respondent pro se.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Mulvey, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2000. He was previously admitted in Illinois, where he is in good standing and presently lists a business address with the Office of Court Administration. By January 2014 order, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law in New York for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his noncompliance with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468–a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468, 113 A.D.3d 1020, 1044, 984 N.Y.S.2d 134 [2014]; see Judiciary Law § 468–a [5] ; Rules of Professional Conduct [ 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ] rule 8.4[d] ). At the time that petitioner's application to suspend respondent, among others, was filed in October 2013, respondent had not fulfilled his attorney registration requirements since the 2004–2005 biennial period. Respondent now moves, by motion returnable on January 27, 2020, for his reinstatement. Noting certain deficiencies therein, petitioner advises that it opposes respondent's application.¹

All attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspension must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) he or she has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, (2) he or she has the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law, and (3) it would be in the public's interest to reinstate the attorney to practice in New York (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Katz], 166 A.D.3d 1469, 1470, 87 N.Y.S.3d 514 [2018] ; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a] ). An applicant for reinstatement must also provide, as a threshold matter, certain required documentation in support of his or her application (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]; part 1240, appendix C).

Initially, given the length of his suspension, respondent properly submits a sworn affidavit in the form set forth in appendix C to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b] ). Notably, Office of Court Administration records demonstrate that respondent is now current with his biennial registration requirements (see Judiciary Law § 468–a ; Rules of the Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1 ). Respondent has also submitted sufficient threshold documentation in support of his application, including proof that he successfully completed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, as is required for all attorneys seeking reinstatement following suspensions of six months or more (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]; compare Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Castle], 161 A.D.3d 1443, 1444, 73 N.Y.S.3d 774 [2018] ). Moreover, having reviewed the notice of motion, respondent's affidavit and the submitted materials confirming respondent's compliance with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, we find that respondent has the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law and that it would be in the public's interest to reinstate him to the practice of law in New York (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation...