In the Matter of ATTORNEYSIN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARYLAW § 468-a.COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONALSTANDARDS, Now Known asATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEEFOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, ON MOTIONPetitioner;MICHAEL MURANO CASTLE,Respondent.(Attorney Registration No. 1858166)___________________________________Calendar Date: January 22, 2018Before: Lynch, J.P., Devine, Clark, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.__________Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the ThirdJudicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee forthe Third Judicial Department.Michael Murano Castle, Tampa, Florida, respondent pro se.__________Per Curiam.Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1983.He currently lists a Florida business address with the Office ofCourt Administration.By September 2009 order, this Court suspended respondentfrom the practice of law in New York for conduct prejudicial tothe administration of justice arising from his noncompliance withthe attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-aand Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR)§ 118.1 (113 AD3d 1020, 1022 [2014]; see Judiciary Law § 468-a[5]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4[d]). In September 2017, respondent cured his registrationdelinquency and he now moves for his reinstatement (see Rules forAttorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of AppDiv, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a]). Petitioner advises, bycorrespondence from its Chief Attorney, that it defers to theCourt’s discretion in disposition of the motion.Significantly, a suspended attorney seeking reinstatementin New York following a suspension of greater than six monthsmust apply by form affidavit prescribed in Rules for AttorneyDisciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240, and also must submitcertain other documentation in support of that application (seeMatter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a[Squires], 153 AD3d 1511, 1512 [2017]; Matter of Attorneys inViolation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Timourian], 153 AD3d 1513,1514 [2017]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR]§ 1240.16 [b]; appendix C). Here, a review of respondent’s swornaffidavit and supplemental affidavit indicates that respondenthas sufficiently completed the requisite form affidavit for therelief he seeks (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR]§ 806.16 [a] [2]). However, respondent’s application concededlydoes not include proof that he has taken and passed theMultistate Professional Responsibility Examination (see Rules forAttorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]).Accordingly, we deny respondent’s motion (see Matter of Attorneysin Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Esser], 159 AD3d 1220,1221 [2018]).Lynch, J.P., Devine, Clark, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.,concur.ORDERED that respondent’s motion for reinstatement isdenied.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
