This is Part 3 of a five-part investigative series. Part 1 introduced the documented public record of Cheryl Cozza Milano's bar suspension. Part 2 examined how she allegedly deployed her legal credentials as a tool of intimidation against small business owners. Part 3 analyzes what the bar record actually means — legally and practically — and what 28 years of unresolved suspension says about accountability in the New York legal system.
A Note on Names: Cheryl Cozza Milano vs. Cheryl Cozza
Before diving into the record, a clarification that matters for anyone who has searched for this person online: Cheryl Cozza Milano also goes by Cheryl Cozza — presenting herself without the "Milano" surname in various contexts. Searching "Cheryl Cozza" and searching "Cheryl Cozza Milano" should return the same public record, but name variation is a known mechanism by which individuals with documented public records avoid being easily found through standard searches.
This article uses both names. The bar record is filed under Cheryl Ann Cozza, registration number 2353167. The married name is Milano. For the purposes of any search — whether by someone researching a potential business interaction, a neighbor doing due diligence, or a journalist following up on this investigation — Cheryl Cozza and Cheryl Cozza Milano are the same person with the same record.
A Record That Has Been Public for Nearly Three Decades
The New York State Unified Court System has maintained Cheryl Cozza Milano's bar record — under her maiden name, Cheryl Ann Cozza — in its public attorney directory since her suspensions were imposed. Here is what that record shows, in full:
- Registration Number: 2353167
- Full Name: Cheryl Ann Cozza
- Date Admitted to Bar: July 25, 1990
- Law School: Pace University School of Law
- Appellate Division Department: 2nd Department
- Current Registration Status: Suspended, delinquent
Disciplinary History:
- Suspension effective July 15, 1997 through March 29, 1998
Ordered by the Appellate Division, 2nd Department
- Suspension effective March 30, 1998 — no end date listed
Ordered by the Appellate Division, 2nd Department
The second suspension — in effect since March 30, 1998 — carries no termination date. It is an indefinite suspension. As of June 2026, it has been active for 28 years, 2 months, and counting.
Understanding the Two Suspensions
The timeline of Cheryl Cozza Milano's bar discipline tells its own story.
In July 1997, the Appellate Division, 2nd Department — the appellate court with disciplinary authority over attorneys admitted in the Second Department, which includes Westchester County — issued its first suspension order. This initial suspension ran for approximately eight months, ending March 29, 1998.
Notably, however, the day after that first suspension ended, a second suspension took effect: March 30, 1998. This was not a new incident that happened to coincide with the end of the first suspension. This was a second, independent order issued by the same court, almost certainly arising from a separate disciplinary proceeding, or from a determination that the conditions for reinstatement following the first suspension had not been met.
The second suspension has no end date. Under New York law, indefinite suspensions do not automatically expire. An attorney subject to an indefinite suspension must actively petition the court for reinstatement, demonstrate fitness to practice, and satisfy the court that whatever conduct led to the suspension has been addressed.
Cheryl Cozza Milano has not done so. Not in 1999. Not in 2005. Not in 2010. Not in 2020. Not as of June 2026.
What "Delinquent" Means on Top of "Suspended"
New York attorneys — including those who are suspended and not actively practicing — are required to register with the Office of Court Administration every two years. Registration involves paying a fee, completing a form, and confirming compliance with continuing legal education requirements. It is not a difficult process. It exists precisely to ensure the bar can account for every attorney admitted to its rolls.
Cheryl Cozza Milano's status is not merely "suspended." It is "suspended, delinquent."
Delinquency indicates a failure to register, a failure to pay registration fees, or both. In some cases, attorneys receive a delinquent designation after failing to complete CLE requirements. In Cheryl Cozza Milano's case, the delinquency compounds a suspension that has been running for nearly three decades.
The combined status — suspended and delinquent — means that she is not only prohibited from practicing law, but has also failed to maintain even the most basic administrative relationship with the bar that once licensed her. She has not checked in. She has not filed paperwork. She has not paid fees. She has not sought reinstatement.
What she apparently has done, according to the small business owners who contacted The Ethics Reporter, is continued to present herself in ways that invoke her legal background when it serves her purposes.
The Court Opinion: What She Actually Did
The full Appellate Division opinion for the March 30, 1998 suspension is publicly available at FindLaw (caselaw.findlaw.com, case no. 1424488). The Ethics Reporter reviewed it in full. What it discloses is not a technical violation or a licensing paperwork issue.
On January 24, 1997, Cheryl Ann Cozza appeared before U.S. District Judge Charles L. Brieant in the Southern District of New York and pleaded guilty to structuring financial transactions for the purpose of evading Currency Transaction Reports, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) — a federal felony.
This is a crime of intentional financial deception. Structuring — deliberately breaking up cash transactions to stay below the $10,000 federal reporting threshold — requires knowing, willful conduct. It cannot be committed accidentally or through ignorance. It is the kind of financial crime that the federal government and courts treat as a deliberate attempt to evade government financial oversight.
The federal sentence imposed on Cheryl Ann Cozza: three years of probation, with three months served under home confinement, and $20,000 in restitution ordered to the New York State Higher Education Services Corporation — the state agency that administers student loan programs in New York. The restitution order reflects a separate finding of financial misconduct related to her student loan obligations.
The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District then brought two charges before the Appellate Division, 2nd Department:
- Charge One: Conviction of a serious crime within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d)
- Charge Two: Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(4) and (8)
A Special Referee sustained both charges. Cheryl Ann Cozza submitted no response and defaulted on the proceedings. The Appellate Division confirmed the Referee's findings and imposed the suspension, specifically noting "her conduct in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) constitutes serious professional misconduct" and citing her default on student loans as an additional aggravating factor.
The court ordered her suspended for two years and explicitly prohibited her from:
- Practicing law in any form, as principal, agent, clerk, or employee
- Appearing as an attorney before any court, board, or public authority
- Giving legal opinions or advice in any form
- Holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law
That fourth prohibition — the prohibition on holding herself out as an attorney — is precisely what the small business owners who contacted The Ethics Reporter allege she has continued to do.
The Appellate Division 2nd Department: Why It Matters
Attorney discipline in New York is administered by the four departments of the Appellate Division. Cheryl Cozza Milano was admitted in the 2nd Department, which covers Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, and Dutchess counties — the entire suburban and downstate New York region.
The 2nd Department's disciplinary orders are formal judicial proceedings, not administrative letters. Suspension by the Appellate Division follows a hearing before a Special Referee, formal charges by the Grievance Committee, and a written court order. It is not a technicality.
In Cheryl Cozza Milano's case, the court found federal felony conduct, dishonesty, and professional unfitness. The suspension it imposed explicitly prohibited her from presenting herself as an attorney in any context. That order remains in force today — 28 years after it was issued.
The Reinstatement Process She Has Never Attempted
New York's path to reinstatement for a suspended attorney is demanding by design. Under 22 NYCRR § 1240.16, an attorney seeking reinstatement from a disciplinary suspension must:
- File a verified petition with the court
- Demonstrate that the conduct that led to suspension has been remediated
- Show good moral character and fitness to practice
- Complete any required CLE
- Pay all outstanding registration fees
- Satisfy the court that reinstatement is in the public interest
The process exists because a bar suspension is not a timeout. It is a determination that an attorney, at a particular moment, was not fit to hold a license to practice law. Reinstatement requires demonstrating that the situation has changed.
Cheryl Cozza Milano has made no such showing. For 28 years, she has neither demonstrated rehabilitation nor even tried. The bar's door is technically open to her. She has chosen not to walk through it.
That is a choice. And it is a choice that has legal consequences for anyone she deals with in a capacity that involves her legal credentials.
What Businesses and Individuals Should Know
If you have received communications from Cheryl Cozza Milano — or from anyone claiming to be an attorney in Westchester County — in which they invoked their attorney status as part of a dispute or pressure campaign, here is what you should understand:
- Her bar status is and has been public record since 1997. You were not obligated to know it. But it was there.
- A suspended attorney claiming to act in a legal capacity may be committing unauthorized practice of law (UPL) under New York Judiciary Law § 478. UPL is a misdemeanor in New York. The state bar's grievance committees and the district attorney's office both have jurisdiction over UPL complaints.
- Bar grievance complaints can be filed even against suspended attorneys. If someone who has been suspended continues to engage in conduct implicating their legal credentials, the appropriate grievance committee can investigate.
- The 2nd Department's Attorney Grievance Committee covers Westchester County. Their contact information is available through the NYS Unified Court System.
- Documenting the conduct matters. Screenshots, emails, review text, and any communications in which legal credentials were invoked should be preserved.
The Accountability This Series Exists to Create
Public records mean nothing if they remain invisible. Cheryl Cozza Milano's 28-year bar suspension has been searchable for nearly three decades. It will now also be findable through this reporting — connected to her full name, her location, and the context in which her status becomes relevant.
That is not punishment. That is accountability. It is the function journalism exists to serve.
Next: Part 4 — The Bully Lawyer Playbook: When Suspended and Disbarred Attorneys Weaponize Their Credentials
The Ethics Reporter is reader-funded. No ads, no corporate backing. If this series matters to you, please support us at theethicsreporter.com/donate.
📢 The Ethics Reporter relies entirely on reader support to keep this journalism free and independent. No ads, no corporate money — just you. If this reporting matters to you, please consider donating even $1 at theethicsreporter.com/donate — it genuinely keeps us going. Thank you.