Matter of Leibowitz , 30 N.Y.S.3d 596 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                            State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered: May 19, 2016                       D-29-16
    ___________________________________
    In the Matter of SHAMAI LEIBOWITZ,
    a Suspended Attorney.
    COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL                    MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    STANDARDS,
    Petitioner;
    SHAMAI LEIBOWITZ,
    Respondent.
    (Attorney 
    Registration No. 4611232
    )
    ___________________________________
    Calendar Date:   May 2, 2016
    Before:   McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ.
    __________
    Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards,
    Albany (Michael K. Creaser of counsel), for petitioner.
    Litman, Asche & Gioiella, LLP, New York (Richard M. Asche
    of counsel), for respondent, and respondent pro se.
    __________
    Per Curiam.
    Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2008
    and currently resides in Silver Springs, Maryland. In December
    2009, respondent pleaded guilty to the federal felony of
    disclosure of classified information, in violation of 
    18 USC § 798
     (a) (3), and admitted to providing classified information
    gained in his role as an FBI linguist to an individual who hosted
    a public Internet blog. This Court determined that respondent
    had committed a "serious crime" (see Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [d];
    72 AD3d 1190 [2010]) and, by decision entered October 21, 2010,
    suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of
    -2-                  D-29-16
    three years (77 AD3d 1167 [2010]). By application sworn to
    December 9, 2015, respondent now applies for reinstatement. By
    letter with enclosures dated March 31, 2016, petitioner advises
    that it opposes respondent's application, to which respondent has
    replied.
    Upon review of the submissions and in consideration of the
    circumstances in the record before us, we conclude that
    respondent has not established by clear and convincing evidence
    that he has fully complied with the provisions of the order
    suspending him (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12
    [b]; see also Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.9 [a],
    [e]). Accordingly, we deny his application for reinstatement.
    McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ.,
    concur.
    ORDERED that the application for reinstatement is denied.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D-29-16

Citation Numbers: 139 A.D.3d 1316, 30 N.Y.S.3d 596

Judges: McCarthy, Egan, Rose, Clark, Aarons

Filed Date: 5/19/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024