| Matter of Leo, Donald William |
| Motion No: 2004-00866 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2015 NY Slip Op 72276(U) |
| Decided on May 5, 2015 |
| 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. |
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M191570
E/ct
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA
PETER B. SKELOS
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.
|
2004-00866
In the Matter of Donald William Leo, a disbarred attorney.
(Attorney Registration No. 1117555)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT |
Motion by Donald William Leo for leave to reargue his prior motion for reinstatement and separate prior motion, in effect, for reinstatement notwithstanding the recommendation of the Committee on Character and Fitness to deny reinstatement, which were denied by a decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 26, 2014, or in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order on motion of this Court. Mr. Leo was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on June 21, 1967. By opinion and order of this Court dated June 28, 2004, Mr. Leo was disbarred upon his resignation and his name was stricken from the roll of attorneys. By decision and order on motion dated January 23, 2012, Mr. Leo's prior motion for reinstatement was held in abeyance and the matter was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to investigate and report on Mr. Leo's current character and fitness to be an attorney, including but not limited to, the sale of his law practice to his son and the business income reported on his tax returns. Subsequently, the Committee on Character and Fitness issued a report, Mr. Leo made a separate motion, in effect, for reinstatement notwithstanding the recommendation of the Committee on Character and Fitness, and the prior motion and the separate prior motion were denied.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
ENG., P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, SKELOS and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court