In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York accepted the resignation of attorney Eric Richard Moy. The decision, made on November 5, 2026, allows Moy to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. This ruling affects Moy's ability to practice law in New York and serves as a reminder of the procedures attorneys must follow when resigning from the bar.

Eric Richard Moy, who was admitted to practice law in New York in 2012, filed for resignation due to nondisciplinary reasons. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (AGC) did not oppose his application, indicating that there were no ongoing disciplinary issues related to his request. This case highlights the process attorneys must navigate when they choose to resign from their legal practice.

The resignation process is governed by specific rules, which allow attorneys to resign without facing disciplinary action under certain circumstances. In this case, Moy's affidavit, sworn on September 30, 2026, and filed on October 6, 2026, provided the necessary information for the court to consider his application. The AGC's correspondence, dated October 26, 2026, confirmed that they were in agreement with Moy's request.

The court ruled unanimously to grant Moy's application for resignation. The judges involved in this decision included Garry, P.J., Clark, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald, and McShan, JJ. The court stated, "[Moy] is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority." This ruling effectively removes Moy from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in New York.

As a result of this decision, Moy's name has been stricken from the attorney roll, and he is required to cease all legal practice in New York immediately. The court ordered him to surrender any Attorney Secure Pass issued to him within 30 days of the decision. This requirement ensures that Moy no longer has access to legal resources or the ability to represent clients in any capacity.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond Moy himself. It serves as a clear example of the procedures that attorneys must follow when resigning from the bar. The AGC's lack of opposition indicates that resignation for nondisciplinary reasons can be a straightforward process if all necessary conditions are met. Attorneys considering resignation should be aware of these procedures to ensure compliance with the rules governing attorney conduct.

This ruling also emphasizes the importance of maintaining a clear record of an attorney's status. By striking Moy's name from the roll of attorneys, the court protects the integrity of the legal profession in New York. It prevents any confusion regarding Moy's ability to practice law and reinforces the standards that attorneys must adhere to.

Looking ahead, this ruling does not appear to have immediate implications for related cases or appeals. Moy's resignation is effective immediately, and there are no indications that he plans to contest this decision or pursue further legal action. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any pending cases or appeals related to Moy.

In conclusion, the Appellate Division's acceptance of Eric Richard Moy's resignation marks a significant moment in his legal career. This decision underscores the importance of following proper procedures when resigning from the bar and serves as a reminder of the responsibilities attorneys hold within the legal system. As Moy moves forward, he will no longer be able to practice law in New York, which may impact his future endeavors in the legal field.