You are here: / / THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “DECEIT...
,

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “DECEIT AND COLLUSION” PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 487 WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS COMMON LAW FRAUD; THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOW A PARTY WAS MISLED BY THE ATTORNEY’S INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action against an attorney (Moore) for “deceit and collusion” within the meaning of Judiciary Law 487:

Judiciary Law § 487 provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]n attorney or counselor who . . . [i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party . . . [i]s guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor by the penal law, he forfeits to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action.” In essence, the statute “imposes liability for the making of false statements with scienter” … . However, “Judiciary Law § 487 is not a codification of common-law fraud and therefore does not require a showing of justifiable reliance” … . Stated another way, “liability under the statute does not depend on whether the court or party to whom the statement is made is actually misled by the attorney’s intentional false statement” … ; i.e., the statute “focuses on the attorney’s intent to deceive, not the deceit’s success” … .

… [P]laintiffs alleged in their amended complaint that, from the time he became the client’s attorney, Moore engaged in a pattern of conduct whereby he advocated for the validity of a fraudulent deed, and oversaw the revision of fraudulent surveys based upon that deed. Plaintiffs alleged that Moore was in possession of documents and correspondence establishing that the deed was the fraudulent product of the client and defendant Aaron I. Mullen, an attorney who had previously represented the client, and that Moore failed to disclose those items despite receiving a valid discovery demand for them. Plaintiffs also alleged that Moore instituted a CPLR article 78 proceeding based upon the allegedly fraudulent deed and that he attached the deed to the petition. Plaintiffs further alleged that Moore participated in the client’s fraud, and did so intentionally and with knowledge of the client’s fraud, to plaintiffs’ detriment of more than $100,000 in legal fees and expenses. Ostrander v Mullen, 2024 NY Slip Op 06461, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: A Judiciary Law 487 action against an attorney focuses on the attorney’s intent to deceive, not whether the deceit was successful.

 

You might also like
RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE IN ATTEMPTING TO LOCATE THE DEFENDANT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Revocation of Pistol Permit (After Acquittal) Not Supported by Evidence
THE SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ELEMENT OF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE OBJECTIVE MEDICAL EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
ROBBERY WAS THE FELONY UPON WHICH THE FELONY ASSAULT WAS PREDICATED; THEREFORE THE SENTENCES FOR ASSAULT FIRST AND ROBBERY FIRST MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING CAR WHEN DEFENDANT WAS FOUR CAR LENGTHS AWAY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THE TRAFFIC LIGHT WAS YELLOW DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT)
Leasing Company Which Never Had Possession of the Product (Here a Garbage Truck) and Which Was a Financial Arm of the Purchaser, Not the Manufacturer, of the Product, Entitled to Dismissal of Strict Products Liability Cause of Action/However, a Question of Fact Was Raised Whether the Finance Lessor Was Liable for Failure to Inspect the Product on the Ground It Had Designated an Agent for Inspection on Its Behalf

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

PLAINTIFF SUED THE COUNTY SHERIFF SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL... PLAINTIFF WAS REPAIRING THE FLASHING ON THE ROOF, NOT DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE,...