On Thursday, October 23, 2025, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s (AGC) motion to immediately suspend attorney Michael J. Biniakewitz from practicing law. The action stems from Biniakewitz’s failure to comply with the AGC’s investigative demands and his delinquent attorney registration.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Michael J. Biniakewitz,” with case number 2024-07164.
The AGC initially moved for Biniakewitz’s suspension in January 2025, citing his failure to answer nine complaints and his failure to file an attorney registration statement and pay the required fee for the 2023-2024 biennial period. This initial motion was later withdrawn after Biniakewitz began cooperating with the investigation by answering the complaints.
However, the AGC renewed its motion for immediate suspension on July 24, 2025, based on Biniakewitz’s alleged continued failure to provide additional documents and information related to the complaints under investigation. The AGC also cited his ongoing failure to rectify his delinquent attorney registration, a violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, as an additional ground for suspension.
The court’s decision, presided over by Justice Peter H. Moulton, with Justices Ellen Gesmer, Lizbeth González, Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke, and Kelly O’Neill Levy concurring, was based on the determination that Biniakewitz’s conduct posed an immediate threat to the public interest due to his non-compliance with the AGC’s lawful demands.
According to the filing, after Biniakewitz answered the initial nine complaints, the AGC requested further documentation and information concerning five of the complaints by May 29, 2025, with a deadline of July 7, 2025. When Biniakewitz failed to meet this deadline, he was given an extension until July 14, 2025, with a warning that failure to comply would result in the renewal of the motion for interim suspension.
In response, Biniakewitz stated he had retained individuals to assist him in retrieving the requested materials from various electronic accounts and storage systems and requested additional time. He also mentioned reaching out to another individual who had assisted him with legal writing. The AGC requested documentation of these retentions, which Biniakewitz allegedly failed to provide.
The court found that Biniakewitz displayed a pattern of non-cooperation, noting that he had disregarded repeated requests to answer the complaints for approximately two years before the initial motion to suspend was filed.
As a result of the suspension, Biniakewitz is prohibited from practicing law in any capacity, appearing as an attorney before any court or public authority, providing legal advice, or holding himself out as an attorney. He is also required to comply with the rules governing the conduct of suspended attorneys, as outlined in 22 NYCRR 1240.15. The court also ordered that Biniakewitz return any secure pass issued by the Office of Court Administration.
According to Avvo, Mr. Biniakewitz acquired his law license in Florida in 2003.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
