You are here: / / JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION AGAINST ATTORNEYS, ALLEGING AN INTENTION TO DECEIVE...

JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION AGAINST ATTORNEYS, ALLEGING AN INTENTION TO DECEIVE THE COURT IN A DIVORCE PROCEEDING, PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the suit against plaintiff’s divorce attorneys alleging a violation of Judiciary Law 487 was properly dismissed, both because of the failure to prove an intent to deceive the court, and the failure to prove pecuniary damage:

​

Judiciary Law § 487(1) provides 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 [or she] forfeits to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action.” “A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 requires an intent to deceive” …  Here, the evidence adduced at trial, including the testimony of [plaintiff’s attorney], supports the trial court’s determination that [the attorney] did not act with the requisite “intent to deceive the court or any party” in applying for the receivership … .

In any event, to succeed on a cause of action to recover damages under Judiciary Law § 487, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she “suffered . . . damages which were proximately caused by the deceit allegedly perpetrated on him [or her] or on the court” … .  The evidence adduced at trial also supports the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish that she suffered pecuniary damages as a result of the alleged deceit. Dupree v Voorhees, 2017 NY Slip Op 06062, Second Dept 8-9-17

 

ATTORNEYS (JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION AGAINST ATTORNEYS, ALLEGING AN INTENTION TO DECEIVE THE COURT IN A DIVORCE PROCEEDING, PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIARY LAW 487 (ATTORNEYS, JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION AGAINST ATTORNEYS, ALLEGING AN INTENTION TO DECEIVE THE COURT IN A DIVORCE PROCEEDING, PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH THE FLOOR OF THE BUILDING UNDER RENOVATION WHEN HE WENT IN TO GET A TOOL FOR HIS WORK ON AN ADJACENT BUILDING, HE WAS PERFORMING DUTIES ANCILLARY TO THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE MEDICAL RECORDS WAS NOT ENOUGH TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
Child’s Out-of Court Statements Sufficiently Corroborated
DEFINITION OF ‘PARENT’ IS THE SAME FOR PARENTAL ACCESS AND CUSTODY; JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINES PRECLUDED SUPREME COURT’S FINDING THAT FATHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING IN THE CUSTODY MATTER (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S SECOND MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW AND VIOLATED THE “SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
ZONING BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER ALL THE STATUTORY FACTORS; DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES TO ALLOW NEW CONSTRUCTION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
WAIVER OF A-1 FELONY INDICTMENT INVALID, DESPITE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER OF APPEAL AND FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR.
ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED FOR THE MOVING DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED THE SAME RELIEF TO DEFENDANTS WHO DID NOT SO MOVE (SECOND 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

UNION’S CLAIM MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LINE OF DUTY INJURIES WAS BEING UNDULY... REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY...