Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Matter of Krinsky
Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 06058Docket: PM-175-22
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 27, 2022; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Pery D. Krinsky, an attorney admitted in 2002 and previously practicing in Manhattan, faced disciplinary action initiated by the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) of the First Judicial Department in August 2018 due to allegations of misconduct related to his representation of another attorney. His case was subsequently transferred to the Third Judicial Department's AGC, which continued the investigation. In June 2021, the Court suspended Krinsky from practicing law for failing to cooperate with the investigations, determining that his conduct posed a threat to the public interest. Following the suspension, the AGC filed a petition in July 2021, charging Krinsky with professional misconduct for not cooperating in its investigations, which violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The parties submitted statements of disputed and undisputed facts, leading AGC to move for a ruling that no factual issues remained, thus confirming Krinsky's misconduct and interim suspension. Krinsky's opposition included a request to amend his pleadings and for conditional reinstatement. However, the Court determined that Krinsky had admitted to all allegations and granted AGC's motion, denying his request to amend. The Court emphasized that amendments are generally permitted but found no need to allow changes given the clear admissions of misconduct. Respondent admits to not cooperating with the investigation but seeks to amend his pleadings by claiming that a recently diagnosed medical condition caused his lack of cooperation unintentionally. However, the court finds the respondent's mental state irrelevant, as an interim suspension can be imposed if the respondent's conduct threatens the public interest, particularly due to non-compliance with the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) demands. The proposed amendments are deemed insufficient and meritless, thus denying the cross motion. The respondent's failure to cooperate is confirmed as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. Consequently, the court upholds the suspension due to ongoing non-cooperation, despite the respondent's claims of recovery from his medical issue. The request to convert the interim suspension to one based on medical incapacity is denied due to a lack of supporting medical proof. Additionally, the request for conditional reinstatement is also denied for failing to provide necessary documentation. The suspension will persist until the AGC's investigations conclude and a valid application for reinstatement is submitted. The court orders the continuation of the suspension and grants the petitioner's motion affirming that no factual issues have been raised.