Matter of Mogil; Grievance Committee for the Ninth Ju
Motion No: 1997-04366
Slip Opinion No: 2008 NYSlipOp 77535(U)
Decided on July 11, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports.


Supreme Court of the State of New York

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M73037

E/mv

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

ROBERT A. SPOLZINO

DAVID S. RITTER, JJ.

1997-04366

In the Matter of B. Marc Mogil,

a disbarred attorney.

(Attorney Registration No. 1450063)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
FOR REINSTATEMENT

Motion by the respondent for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on March 5, 1975. By decision and order on motion of this court dated July 28, 1997, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law and the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against him. By opinion and order of this court dated December 16, 1998, he was disbarred based upon six charges of professional misconduct. By decision and order on motion of this court dated December 28, 2006, the respondent's motion for reinstatement was denied with leave to renew upon his submission of a fully completed application properly sworn to. By decision and order on motion dated October 4, 2007, the respondent's second motion for reinstatement was held in abeyance and referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to arrange for the respondent's examination by a qualified medical expert to determine whether he is incapacitated from returning to the practice of law.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the report of Dr. Virginia L. Susman, dated January 17, 2008, and the papers filed in response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied.

We find that the respondent does not demonstrate the requisite fitness and character to practice law.

PRUDENTI, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, SPOLZINO and RITTER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court