The question in this case is whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim under Judiciary Law § 487.
In relevant part, Judiciary Law § 487 makes an attorney liable for treble damages in a civil action if the attorney “[i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party.” The Legislature intended an “expansive reading” of the word “deceit” to capture more than the pre-existing “common law or statutory cheats.” Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 12 N.Y.3d 8, 13 (2009).
Plaintiffs were represented by defendants in prosecuting an intellectual property litigation that was ultimately dismissed. Plaintiffs then commenced this action asserting Judiciary Law and other claims based on allegations that defendants knowingly made false representations about the strength of plaintiffs’ claims in the earlier litigation to fraudulently induce them to retain defendants. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, which Supreme Court granted except with respect to plaintiffs’ Judiciary Law § 487 claims. With respect to those claims, the trial court concluded that triable issues of fact existed as to whether plaintiffs were damaged by defendants’ alleged “chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency.”
The Second Department reversed the trial court’s decision not to dismiss the Judiciary Law § 487 claims. The court clarified that a “chronic extreme pattern of legal delinquency” is not a basis for liability under that provision, and held that plaintiffs had not alleged facts with sufficient particularity showing that defendants had an “intent to deceive the court or any party.”
The Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs leave to appeal.
Return to the case page for Bill Birds, Inc. v. Stein Law Firm P.C.