Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2019, and he is also admitted in New Jersey and in Pennsylvania, where he maintains a business address. In November 2024, after a seven-day hearing, respondent was suspended for five years by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upon a determination that his conduct in six separate client matters violated 48 Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. In June 2025, after a hearing, respondent's privilege to practice law in Virginia FN1 was revoked by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board upon its determination that respondent's conduct in relation to an unrelated client matter had violated 10 Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. Then, in January 2026, respondent was first indefinitely suspended by the Supreme Court of New Jersey for engaging in serious misconduct. He was thereafter suspended for a period of two years by April 2026 order of that Court, and that suspension was premised upon two separate motions made by the New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board. One motion sought to impose discipline based upon respondent's founded misconduct in Pennsylvania, and the second motion sought the imposition of discipline on consent arising out of a distinct client matter. In total, the discipline imposed upon respondent arose out of his misconduct in nine separate client matters that spanned three jurisdictions. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) now moves to impose discipline upon respondent in this state (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.13). Respondent opposes the motion, and AGC has been heard in reply. Upon an application by AGC containing proof that an attorney has been disciplined by a foreign jurisdiction, the attorney must demonstrate why discipline should not be imposed in New York for the underlying misconduct (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [a]). In response to such an application, the attorney may file an affidavit asserting any of three defenses as provided in Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters § 1240.13 (b) (see Matter of Beckett, 241 AD3d 1034, 1034 [3d Dept 2025]). Specifically, an attorney may assert (1) that the disciplinary hearing in the foreign jurisdiction lacked the requisite notice and opportunity to be heard such that the respondent was deprived of due process, (2) that there was an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct, and/or (3) that the alleged misconduct forming the basis for discipline in the foreign jurisdiction does not constitute misconduct in New York (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters § 1240.13 [b]).
Having reviewed the parties' submissions, we conclude that respondent has not established any of the available defenses to the imposition of discipline in this state (see Matter of Durkin, 220 AD3d 1046, 1047 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Hahn, 167 AD3d 1140, 1140 [3d Dept 2018]). Specifically, we note that [*2]respondent meaningfully participated in the out-of-state disciplinary proceedings, countering any contention that he was deprived of his due process rights or that there was an infirmity of proof (see Matter of Cimino, 249 AD3d 1475, 1476 n 2 [3d Dept 2026]; Matter of Yanowitch, 244 AD3d 1701, 1702 n 1 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of White, 243 AD3d 1112, 1113-1114 n 2 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Durkin, 220 AD3d at 1047; Matter of Spark, 196 AD3d 826, 827 [3d Dept 2021]; Matter of Hoines, 185 AD3d 1349, 1349-1350 [3d Dept 2020]). Any argument that the Pennsylvania disciplinary proceeding employed the improper standard of proof is also unavailing (see Office of Disciplinary Counsel v Anonymous, 331 A3d 523, 528-529 [Pa Sup Ct 2025]), and respondent's continuous attempts to relitigate the issues raised in the disciplinary proceedings are improper in this forum (see Matter of Campbell, 203 AD3d 1380, 1382 [3d Dept 2022]). Lastly, respondent's conclusory and unsworn assertion that his misconduct does not warrant the imposition of reciprocal discipline in New York does not provide an actual argument for us to consider (see Matter of Adams, 204 AD3d 1300, 1301 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Rosenberg, 202 AD3d 1271, 1273 [3d Dept 2022] Matter of Spark, 196 AD3d at 827).FN2 Accordingly, we turn to the sanction to be imposed.
We are not obligated to impose the same sanction as that imposed by the foreign tribunal(see Matter of Tabe, 233 AD3d
1
1166, 1167 [3d Dept 2024]); instead, we are charged with "crafting a sanction that protects the public, maintains the honor and integrity of the profession or deters others from engaging in similar misconduct" (Matter of Lee, 238 AD3d 1316, 1317 [3d Dept 2025]; see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 [b] [2]). Notwithstanding this, we often impose the same sanction imposed by the foreign jurisdiction, unless aggravating or mitigating factors warrant an upward or downward departure (see Matter of Weiner, 251 AD3d 1336, 1338 [3d Dept 2026]). In aggravation, AGC notes that, cumulatively, respondent has demonstrated a serious pattern of misconduct that has adversely affected multiple clients (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [c], [d]). Additionally, respondent failed to report his discipline in either Virginia or New Jersey as required by the Rules of Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 (d), which serves to further aggravate his conduct (see Matter of Chu, 250 AD3d 1526, 1529 [3d Dept 2026]; Matter of Radshaw, 213 AD3d 1193, 1194 [3d Dept 2023]). We are also mindful that, in more than one client matter, respondent failed to refund unearned fees to the client until after claims were filed with the appropriate Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, demonstrating his indifference to making restitution (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [j]), and he was found to provide incredible testimony in at least one disciplinary proceeding (see ABA Standards [*3]for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [f]). In opposition, respondent does not present mitigating evidence for us to consider. Instead, he attempts to minimize his conduct, stating that these disciplinary proceedings stemmed from a minimal number of grievances brought by a few clients over his career, which spanned over two decades, wherein he has represented a vast amount of clients (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [g], [i]). Therefore, based upon a totality of the circumstances, and in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession or deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, we suspend respondent for a period of three years (see Matter of Altman, 227 AD3d 1217, 1218-1219 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Donohue, 171 AD3d 1295, 1296 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of McCarthy, 166 AD3d 1465, 1467 [3d Dept 2018]), and further condition his reinstatement in New York upon his reinstatement in Pennsylvania (see Matter of Durkin, 220 AD3d at 1048; Matter of Hankes, 210 AD3d 1282, 1283 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of McCarthy, 166 AD3d at 1467; Matter of Sicklinger, 166 AD3d 1205, 1207 [3d Dept 2018]). Aarons, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, Powers and Mackey, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the motion of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court (see generally Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16); and it is further
ORDERED that, for the period of suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form in the State of New York, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto, or to hold himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys and shall duly certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15).
Footnotes
Footnote 1 Respondent was not admitted to practice law in Virginia; however, he held himself out as providing legal services in that state, which made him subject to Virginia's State Bar Disciplinary Board authority (see VA Rules of Prof Conduct rule 8.5 [a]).
Footnote 2
Nevertheless, we note that respondent's extensive misconduct would constitute misconduct in this state.
2