On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department publicly censured attorney Alex Joseph Kaminski. The censure follows a motion by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District to confirm the report of a Special Referee regarding Kaminski’s conduct.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Alex Joseph Kaminski,” with case no. 2023-01791.
The disciplinary action is a result of Kaminski’s October 3, 2022, conviction for driving while intoxicated, classified as an unclassified misdemeanor. This led the court to direct Kaminski to demonstrate why he should not be suspended, censured, or disbarred.
A hearing was conducted before Special Referee David I. Ferber, who subsequently concluded that Kaminski had not provided sufficient justification to avoid disciplinary action. The Grievance Committee then sought to confirm this finding and impose a suitable sanction.
The charges stemmed from an incident on January 26, 2022, when police responded to a car accident and found Kaminski in his vehicle, which had collided with parked cars. Officers observed signs of intoxication, and Kaminski refused both a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer. An eyewitness reported that Kaminski had been driving in the wrong lane and collided with multiple vehicles.
Kaminski had pleaded guilty on October 3, 2022, to driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene of an accident with property damage. The agreed-upon disposition included jail time, probation, driver’s license revocation, mandatory programs, community service, installation of an ignition interlock device, restitution for property damage, fines, and surcharges.
The proceedings also revealed a prior conviction for Kaminski for driving while intoxicated in 2017, for which he received a conditional discharge.
In a request for a private admonition, Kaminski asserted that he had taken steps toward sobriety, made lifestyle changes since the birth of his son, accepted responsibility, expressed remorse, cooperated with authorities, and complied with probation terms. His attorney also argued that his actions did not harm any clients.
Despite these assertions, the Special Referee’s report, which the court upheld, specifically noted it was “troubling that the respondent did not continue to seek objective third-party support via Alcoholics Anonymous or another organization once his mandated remedial activities had been completed.” This lack of continued, verifiable engagement in sobriety maintenance beyond court-ordered programs appeared to be a key factor in the court’s determination that Kaminski failed to meet his burden of proof.
Ultimately, the court determined that Kaminski failed to demonstrate why a final order of discipline should not be issued.
The Disposition states:
“In view of the evidence adduced, the Grievance Committee’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted. Under the totality of the circumstances, the respondent is publicly censured for the unlawful conduct which resulted in his conviction.”
According to the filing, Mr. Kaminski acquired his law license in New York in 2014.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
