Matter of Tustaniwsky (2022 NY Slip Op 02203) Matter of Tustaniwsky 2022 NY Slip Op 02203 Decided on March 31, 2022 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided and Entered: March 31, 2022 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial Department Dianne T. Renwick,J.P., David Friedman Anil C. Singh Martin Shulman John R. Higgitt, JJ. Motion No. 2021-04228 Case No. 2021-04589 [*1]In the Matter of Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, (Admitted as Oleh Roman Tustaniwsky), an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 3982402.), Respondent. Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Third Judicial Department on July 24, 2001. Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Remi E. Shea, Esq., of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent, pro se. Per Curiam Respondent Oleh R. Tustaniwsky was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Third Judicial Department on July 24, 2001, under the name Oleh Roman Tustaniwsky. Respondent's attorney registration address on file with the Office of Court Administration is located within the First Judicial Department. Respondent was admitted to practice law in the State of California in 1986 and has been on inactive status since December 2005. He was also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in July 2005. The Attorney Grievance Committee (the Committee) seeks an order, pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(2) and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) §1240.13, imposing reciprocal discipline on respondent predicated upon the Supreme Court of California's September 16, 2020 order (the California order) accepting respondent's resignation while disciplinary charges were pending. The Committee requests that respondent be sanctioned as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Respondent pro se has not appeared in this proceeding or opposed the motion. Although the Committee's motion is solely predicated upon the California order, a summary of respondent's prior disciplinary history is warranted. On July 9, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit publicly reprimanded respondent and also suspended him from the practice of law for one year due to his having defaulted on scheduling orders in multiple cases and having filed substantively deficient briefs and meritless pleadings in other cases (see In re Tustaniwsky, 758 F3d 179 [2d Cir 2014]). Based upon the Second Circuit's suspension, the U.S. Department of Justice's Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR)[FN1] issued an order on September 9, 2014 reciprocally suspending respondent for one year. Similarly, on September 16, 2015, the Supreme Court of California issued an order imposing upon respondent a four-year stayed suspension, a two-year actual suspension, and four years of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals