Matter of Koziol ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                            State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered: December 10, 2015                    D-90-15
    ___________________________________
    In the Matter of LEON R. KOZIOL,
    a Suspended Attorney.
    COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL                    MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    STANDARDS,
    Petitioner;
    LEON R. KOZIOL,
    Respondent.
    (Attorney Registration No. 2075455)
    ___________________________________
    Calendar Date:    November 23, 2015
    Before:   Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ.
    __________
    Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards,
    Albany (Michael G. Gaynor of counsel), for petitioner.
    Leon R. Koziol, New Hartford, respondent pro se.
    __________
    Per Curiam.
    Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate
    Division, Fourth Department in 1986. He maintained an office for
    the practice of law in the City of Utica, Oneida County.
    As relevant herein, respondent, who has a lengthy
    disciplinary history, remains subject to both a one-year
    suspension from the practice of law imposed by this Court in
    September 2010 (Matter of Koziol, 76 AD3d 1136 [2010], lv
    dismissed 15 NY3d 943 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 853 [2011], cert
    denied sub nom. Koziol v Grievance Committee of Fifth Jud. Dist.
    -2-                  D-90-15
    of N.Y., ___ US ___, 
    132 S. Ct. 455
    [2011]) and a six-month
    suspension we imposed in June 2013 (Matter of Koziol, 107 AD3d
    1137 [2013], lv dismissed and denied 21 NY3d 1056 [2013], cert
    denied ___ US ___, 
    134 S. Ct. 1038
    [2014]). Respondent's most
    recent applications to this Court seeking reinstatement were
    denied in January 2013 and May 2014.
    By application sworn to June 24, 2015, respondent now
    reapplies for reinstatement. By letter with enclosures dated
    October 22, 2015, petitioner advises that it opposes respondent's
    application.
    Upon review of the submissions and consideration of all the
    circumstances in the record before us, we conclude that
    respondent has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he
    has fully complied with the provisions of the order suspending
    him and, further, that he possesses the character and general
    fitness to resume the practice of law (see Rules of App Div, 3d
    Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12 [b]). Accordingly, we deny his current
    application for reinstatement.
    Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.
    ORDERED that the application for reinstatement is denied.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D-90-15

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/10/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024