E Point Perfect – Interesting and beneficial content
Law \ Legal

A Very Complicated New York Real Estate Fraud Case


Fierro v Yellen  2022 NY Slip Op 32959(U)  August 31, 2022  Supreme Court, Kings County  Docket Number: Index No. 523796/2021  Judge: Ingrid Joseph is way too complicated a fact pattern to set forth in a paragraph or two.  You’ll have to read the multi-page facts in the case itself.

Here is the doctrinal take-away discussion on Judiciary Law § 487:

“The statute of limitations is also six years for plaintiffs’ first cause of action for violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see CPLR § 213 [ 1]; Melcher v Greenberg Traurig,
LLP, 23 NY3d 10, 15 [2014], rearg denied 23 NY3d 998 [2014]). Since this cause of action accrued at the same time as plaintiffs’ third cause of action for fraud, it similarly is
time-barred, warranting its dismissal (see CPLR 3 211 [a] [5]). ”

“Furthermore, Judiciary Law § 487 ( 1) provides, in pertinent part, that “[ a ]n attorney or counselor who . . . [i]Is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party . . . forfeits to the party ‘ injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action.” lt is understood that “relief under a cause of action based upon Judiciary Law § 487 ‘is not lightly given”‘ (Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US], 134 AD3d 610,615 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 28 NY3d 903 [2015], quoting Chowaiki & Co. Fine Art Ltd. v Lacher, 115 AD3d 600, 601 [1st Dept 2014 ]). To warrant such relief, the plaintiff must make a showing of “egregious conduct or a chronic and extreme pattern of behavior” on the part of the defendant attorneys that caused damages (Savitt v Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 126 AD3d 506, 507 [1st Dept 2015]).  Moreover, “allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity” (Facebook, Inc., 134 AD3d at 615), and “the claim will be dismissed if the allegations as to scienter are conclusory and factually insufficient” (id.; see also . Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v Frankfurt Garbus Klein & Selz, P’.C., 13 AD3d 296, 297-298 [1st  Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 707 [2005]; Agostini v Sobol, 304 AD2d 395, 396 [1st Dept 2003 ]). This court, upon consideration, does not find that plaintiffs sufficiently allege such “egregious conduct or a chronic and extreme pattern of behavior” on the part of the defendant attorneys to state a viable claim under Judiciary Law § 487 (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Savitt, 126 AD3d at 507). “


Source link

Related posts

Blocked By Bali: Queen Elizabeth Experiences COVID-19 Outbreak With Hundreds Infected

When Does Offensive Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel Apply in MDLs?

California Adds PFAS to List of Chemicals Subject to Prop 65 Enforcement Actions

Oregon Cannabis: State of the State

Treats from USCIS to LPRs: Green Card Validity Extension

Episode 42: How Digital Nomads Can Work in Canada