Any attorney seeking reinstatement from suspension must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that he or she has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, (2) that he or she has the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law, and (3) that it would be in the public’s interest to reinstate the attorney to practice in New York (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Smith], 152 AD3d 960, 960 [2017]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Ostroskey], 151 AD3d 1377, 1378 [2017]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[a]). A reinstatement applicant must also provide, as a threshold matter, certain required documentation in support of his or her application (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[b]; part 1240, appendix C).
In light of the length of her suspension, respondent appropriately completed the form affidavit contained in appendix D to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[b]) and such affidavit is properly sworn to (compare Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Hughes–Hardaway], 152 AD3d 951, 952 [2017]).
As to her character and fitness, respondent attests to having no criminal record or other disciplinary history during the time of her suspension (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] part 1240, appendix C, ¶¶ 14, 30). Considering the foregoing along with respondent’s responses provided in her form affidavit, we conclude that she has established, by clear and convincing evidence, her character and fitness to practice law in New York (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Squires], 153 AD3d 1511, 1513 [2017]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[b]).
We further conclude that respondent’s reinstatement will be in the public interest (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[a]; compare Matter of Leibowitz, 153 AD3d 1484, 1484 [2017]). Respondent’s misconduct had no impact on a client, and she has expressed contrition for the deliberate public exposure of her body parts in a manner contrary to local standards of appropriate behavior.
ORDERED that the motion for reinstatement by respondent is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.