You are here: / / PLENARY ACTION ALLEGING ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DURING A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING...

PLENARY ACTION ALLEGING ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DURING A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487; PRIOR MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff could bring a plenary action against their attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law 487. The further determined the fact that plaintiff’s had previously asked for sanctions against the attorneys did not collaterally estop them from bringing the Judiciary Law action:

Plaintiffs commenced this Judiciary Law § 487 action against defendant based on her conduct when representing plaintiffs’ adversary in a foreclosure action. We agree with plaintiffs that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Although plaintiffs were aware of the alleged misconduct during the pendency of the prior foreclosure action, they are not precluded from bringing a plenary action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 provided that they are not collaterally attacking the judgment from the prior action … . Indeed, the language of the statute does not require the claim to be brought in a pending action … . Here, plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages for additional legal fees made necessary by defendant’s alleged misconduct in the foreclosure action, and they are not collaterally attacking the judgment of foreclosure … .

… A motion for sanctions for frivolous conduct (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]) is not the same as a cause of action for attorney misconduct … . We therefore conclude that collateral estoppel does not apply, inasmuch as the identical issue was not raised in the foreclosure action … . Kimbrook Rte. 31, L.L.C. v Bass, 2017 NY Slip Op 01083, 4th Dept 2-10-17

 

ATTORNEYS (PLENARY ACTION ALLEGING ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DURING A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487, PRIOR MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION)/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (PLENARY ACTION ALLEGING ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DURING A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487, PRIOR MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION)/JUDICIARY LAW 487 (PLENARY ACTION ALLEGING ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DURING A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487, PRIOR MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION)

You might also like
LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED, NOTICE FILED PROMPTLY AFTER CLAIMANTS LEARNED THE WATER AUTHORITY CREATED THE DEFECT IN THE ROADWAY.
INDICTMENT DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TIME PERIODS IN TWO COUNTS, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THOSE TWO COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Policy Language Interpreted to Support Plaintiff’s Allegation the Insurer Was Timely Notified of Injured Worker’s Claim
AN UNRESTRICTED EASEMENT ALLOWING ACCESS TO A LAKE ENCOMPASSES THE RIGHT TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN AND USE A DOCK (FOURTH DEPT). ​
4 ½ Inch Drop Raised Question of Fact About Dangerous Condition and Failure to Warn
Driver with Right of Way Who Strikes a Vehicle Which Suddenly Enters the Right of Way Is Free from Negligence (No Need to Apply the Emergency Doctrine)/Emergency Doctrine Does Not Automatically Absolve a Driver of Liability
THE ONE COUNT INDICTMENT WAS RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AND WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL; THE APPELLATE COURT NOTED THAT EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN NARROWED AT TRIAL, DISMISSAL WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE PRETRIAL NOTICE OF THE CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT).
THE IMPOSITION OF TWO CONSECUTIVE PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS ILLEGAL (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED TO $450, FEE APPLICATION NOT PROPERLY... DISCLAIMER IN SUBCONTRACT IS AMBIGUOUS, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COUNTERCLAIM...