Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M40448

S/nal

ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.

HOWARD MILLER

ROBERT W. SCHMIDT

THOMAS A. ADAMS

DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.

1997-11662 In the Matter of Cornell D.M.J. Cornish, admitted as Cornell D. Cornish, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 1868975)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the respondent to, inter alia, amend the decision and order on application of this court dated February 6, 2006,which, inter alia, reinstated him as an attorney and counselor-at-law, by: 1) changing his name from "Cornell D.M.J. Cornish" to read "Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish", as he is currently registered on the roll of attorneys in New York State; 2) deleting and/or modifying certain language of this court's February 6, 2006, order; 3) granting him leave to present oral argument on this motion; or, 4) if the motion and oral argument are denied, granting him leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on June 23, 1982, under the name Cornell D. Cornish. On August 2, 1991, his name was changed to "Cornell Daniel Michael Judge Cornish" on New York State's roll of attorneys, in accordance with the September 13, 1990, order of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia granting his application for the change of his name. By order of the Maryland Court of Appeals dated December 4, 1995, he was placed on inactive status and his name was stricken from the register of attorneys in that court. By subsequent order of the same court dated February 7, 1996, his application for dissolution or amendment of his inactive status was denied. By decision and order of this court dated March 16, 1998, the Grievance Committee's motion to impose reciprocal discipline upon him, based upon the disciplinary action taken against him by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, was held in abeyance pending a hearing at his request. By order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dated April 3, 1996, he was suspended from the practice of law in that court pending his reinstatement in Maryland. By opinion of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals dated March 27, 1997, he was suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in the District of Columbia based on the imposition of inactive status in Maryland, with his reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness. By decision and order on motion of this court dated June 15, 1998, his motions, inter alia, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from this court's March 16, 1998, order and for a new hearing were denied. By opinion and order of this court dated August 17, 1998, he was suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years, with his reinstatement to the New York Bar conditioned upon his reinstatement to the Maryland Bar. In a decision and order appended to that opinion, his motion, inter alia, for summary judgment or a new hearing was denied. By decision and order on motion of this court dated November 20, 1998, his motion, inter alia, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from this court's opinion and order dated August 17, 1998, was denied. By order dated November 16, 2000, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reinstated him to the Bar of that court. By order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland dated October 3, 2003, he was reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Maryland. By decision and order on application of this court dated November 1, 2004, his application for reinstatement to the Bar of the State of New York was held in abeyance and the matter referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to investigate and report on the respondent's current fitness to be an attorney, including but not limited to his admission to the Maryland Court of Appeals that he was "unable and has no desire to cope with the demands of the practice of law," and the position of the New York Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection with respect to the respondent's application for reinstatement. By decision and order on application of this court dated February 2, 2006, he was reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effective immediately.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied in all respects.

FLORIO, J.P., MILLER, SCHMIDT, ADAMS and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court