Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M67693

E/nl

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

REINALDO E. RIVERA

ROBERT A. SPOLZINO

PETER B. SKELOS

FRED T. SANTUCCI, JJ.

2004-09873 In the Matter of Scott F. Saidel, a suspended attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 2602357)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT

Motion by the respondent for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law. By judgment and order of the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona dated October 29, 2003, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Arizona for a period of six months retroactive to March 12, 2001, and placed on probation for a period of one year upon reinstatement. By opinion and order of this court dated August 8, 2005, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law based upon the disciplinary action taken against him by the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona, for a period of one year, commencing June 9, 2005. By decision and order on motion dated May 5, 2006, (1) that branch of the respondent's motion which sought to set aside and/or modify this court's opinion and order suspending him was denied, and (2) that branch of his motion which sought reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law was denied with leave to renew upon the submission of a properly completed application, including but not limited to, the respondent 's submission of all required documentation. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on October 19, 1994.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and the papers submitted in relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is held in abeyance and the matter is 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: (1) the respondent's compliance with the order of suspension and 22 NYCRR 691.10, in particular, whether he held himself out as a lawyer and dispensed any legal advice; (2) the facts and circumstances surrounding the respondent's recent traffic infractions or violations for speeding and failure to obey a traffic signal; (3) the nature of the respondent's position as "managing partner" with The Carcierge, LLC; (4) the respondent's connection with Carefree Development Corporation; (5) the status of the respondent's application to the Florida bar; (6) the basis for the respondent's motion to set aside his conviction pending in the Arizona courts; (7) the amount of restitution the respondent paid to the victims of the automobile accident; (8) the sentence imposed by the Arizona courts and the amount of time the respondent served; and (9) the absence of character letters.

PRUDENTI, P.J., RIVERA, SPOLZINO, SKELOS and SANTUCCI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court