You are here: / / JUDICIARY LAW 487 APPLIES ONLY TO MISREPRESENTATIONS BY AN ATTORNEY WHICH...

JUDICIARY LAW 487 APPLIES ONLY TO MISREPRESENTATIONS BY AN ATTORNEY WHICH ARE MADE IN THE COURSE OF A LAWSUIT; THE STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY WHERE, AS HERE, THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE TO INDUCE PLAINTIFFS TO START A MERITLESS LAWSUIT TO GENERATE A LEGAL FEE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the Judiciary Law 487 cause of action, based upon the allegation plaintiffs’ attorneys (defendants) deceitfully induced plaintiffs to bring a meritless lawsuit in order to generate a legal fee, was properly dismissed. A Judiciary Law 487 cause of action lies only if misrepresentations are made in the course of litigation, as opposed to, as here, before litigation is commenced:

Here … defendants established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Judiciary Law § 487 (1) claim by demonstrating that plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants engaged in deceit or collusion during the course of the underlying federal intellectual property lawsuit … . In response, plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden to establish material, triable issues of fact … . The affidavits plaintiffs submitted in opposition to summary judgment did not allege that defendants committed any acts of deceit or collusion during the pendency of the underlying federal lawsuit. To the extent defendants were alleged to have made deceitful statements, plaintiffs’ allegation that defendants induced them to file a meritless lawsuit based on misleading legal advice preceding commencement of the lawsuit is not meaningfully distinguishable from the conduct we deemed insufficient to state a viable attorney deceit claim in Looff (97 NY at 482). The statute does not encompass the filing of a pleading or brief containing nonmeritorious legal arguments, as such statements cannot support a claim under the statute … . Similarly, even assuming it constituted deceit or collusion, defendants’ alleged months-long delay in informing plaintiffs that their federal lawsuit had been dismissed occurred after the litigation had ended and therefore falls outside the scope of Judiciary Law § 487 (1). Thus, plaintiffs’ Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action was properly dismissed. Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 02125, CtApp 3-31-20

 

You might also like
Possession of the Note, Not the Mortgage, Confers Standing to Foreclose
RECORDS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING A POLICE OFFICER ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE EVEN IF THE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IS REDACTED (CT APP).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS GIVEN NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT TO TAKE A DNA SAMPLE FROM THE DEFENDANT; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE WARRANT APPLICATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT TO ASSESS PROBABLE CAUSE; A VIDEO DEPICTING DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A BACKPACK.
FOLLOWING THE RE-ELECTION OF VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT NICOLAS MADURO, THE VENEZUELAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY NAMED JUAN GUAIDO INTERIM PRESIDENT AND DECLARED THE EXCHANGE OF UNSECURED FOR SECURED NOTES OFFERED BY THE VENEZUELAN STATE-OWNED OIL COMPANY UNAUTHORIZED; VENEZUELAN LAW CONTROLS THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTES UNDER THE UCC, NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THE TRANSACTION (CT APP). ​
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SNOWMOBILE TRAILS IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK IS PROHIBITED BY THE “FOREVER WILD” PROVISION IN THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (CT APP).
THE TOP COUNT OF A MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SWORN ALLEGATIONS OF FACT, BUT THE LESSER COUNTS WERE SUPPORTED; A GUILTY PLEA TO THE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE TOP COUNT DID NOT WAIVE THE DEFECT AND DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY REVERSED (CT APP).
LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES.

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

A FRYE HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE LOW... BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION MONTHS...