On Thursday, January 26, 2023, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department ruled on Troy Attorney John A. Aretakis’ motion seeking vacatur of the December 2008 order suspending him from the practice of law for misconduct.

The case is styled In the Matter of John A. Aretakis and was brought by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, case no. PM-09-23.

By an order dated December 11, 2008, the Court suspended Aretakis from the practice of law for a period of one year. The suspension stemmed from findings that Aretakis has engaged in professional misconduct by making false accusations against judges, knowingly made false statements of law and fact, and engaged in undignified and discourteous conduct degrading to the Court. Aretakis was further found to have engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which adversely reflected on Aretakis’ fitness as an attorney.

A copy of the December 2008 suspension order can be found online at this link.

By motion, Aretakis sought the Court to vacate the above-cited order of suspension, as well as Aretakis’s appeal which has been dismissed by the Court concerning the case 11 NY3d 919 [2009] which involves Aretakis’s Amended Complaint against the State of New York, Supreme Court, Third Department Committee on Professional Standards (“COPS”), Mark Ochs (“Ochs”) Chief Attorney and Counsel to COPS, Michael Gaynor (“Gaynor”) a COPS staff attorney, and William Keniry (“Keniry”) an attorney and member of COPS’ Executive Committee (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that the Defendants have unfairly and illegally targeted and maliciously targeted Aretakis with meritless disciplinary charges due to his work involving clergy sexual abuse.

Moreover, according to the filing, Aretakis sought an order granting respondent review of files and other documents held by the petitioner, Attorney Grievance Committee, or in the alternative, for the Court to undertake an in-camera inspection of said files and other documents, and other sundry relief.

The filing states:

“Cross motion by petitioner, returnable March 21, 2022, for an order enjoining respondent from filing any new motions or applications in this Court without first obtaining leave of the Court.”

Accordingly, the Court, after consideration of the papers filed both by Aretakis and the AGC ruled against both.

The disposition reads:

“ORDERED that respondent’s motion is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that petitioner’s cross-motion is denied.”

According to Avvo, Mr. John A. Aretakis practices in New York. He has been licensed in New York, as well as in Maryland.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.