The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has accepted the resignation of attorney Michael E. Catalinotto. This decision, made on November 5, 2026, allows Catalinotto to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The ruling affects Catalinotto, who has practiced law since 1961, and it sets a precedent for how attorneys can resign without facing disciplinary action.

Catalinotto's case is significant as it highlights the process by which attorneys can leave the profession voluntarily. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of maintaining ethical standards within the legal community while also providing a pathway for attorneys who wish to step away from practice without facing penalties.

Michael E. Catalinotto has been a member of the New York bar since 1961. He has a business address in Albany and sought to resign without any disciplinary issues. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, which oversees attorney conduct, did not oppose his resignation request. This case was brought before the court after Catalinotto submitted an affidavit and other relevant documents supporting his application to resign.

The court's decision comes after reviewing Catalinotto's affidavit sworn on September 18, 2026, and the subsequent correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee. The committee's lack of opposition to Catalinotto's resignation indicates that there were no outstanding issues regarding his conduct as an attorney. The court noted, “Upon reading Catalinotto's affidavit... and having determined that Catalinotto is eligible to resign for nondisciplinary reasons, we grant his application and accept his resignation.”

The ruling was delivered per curiam, meaning it was issued by the court as a whole rather than by a specific judge. The judges involved in this decision were Garry, P.J., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia, and Powers.

As a result of this ruling, Catalinotto's name has been officially stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in New York. The court ordered that he must cease practicing law in any capacity and is forbidden from presenting himself as an attorney in the state. Additionally, he is required to return any Attorney Secure Pass issued to him within 30 days of the decision.

This decision underscores the court's authority to manage the legal profession in New York and ensures that attorneys who resign do so in a manner that upholds the integrity of the legal system. It also serves as a reminder that attorneys can step away from their practice without facing disciplinary action, provided they follow the appropriate procedures.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond Catalinotto himself. It provides a clear framework for other attorneys who may wish to resign under similar circumstances. The acceptance of a nondisciplinary resignation indicates that the court recognizes the need for flexibility in the legal profession, allowing attorneys to retire or leave practice without the stigma of disciplinary action.

Going forward, this ruling may encourage other attorneys to consider resigning if they no longer wish to practice law, knowing that they can do so without facing potential penalties. It also reinforces the importance of ethical conduct in the legal field, as the absence of disciplinary issues played a crucial role in Catalinotto's successful resignation.

Details regarding any potential appeals were not available in the court filing. However, since the resignation was accepted for nondisciplinary reasons and the Attorney Grievance Committee did not oppose it, it seems unlikely that there will be further legal action in this matter.