In a textbook example of the reason for social policy. Tenore v Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.  2014 NYSlipOp 06811 October 8, 2014 Appellate Division, Second Department shows why privity is an essential part of the legal malpractice world.  Were litigants able to sue their opponent’s attorney, there would be a legal malpractice case after every regular case.

Courts are very conservative with Judiciary Law 487 claims for the same reason.  Were a 487 claim to depend merely upon a bad outcome, and a claim that the opponent’s attorney was deceitful, there would be a separate docket of JL 487 cases in every county.  Hence, the short decision.

"The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant law firm, which represented his former wife in a matrimonial action against him, alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487, fraud, and abuse of process. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the defendant included in the underlying matrimonial action a cause of action to recover damages for assault that was without any factual basis, in an attempt to extract additional money from him in the course of that litigation. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in the instant action, and the plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend that complaint to add causes of action to recover damages for a violation of General Business Law § 349, prima facie tort, and malicious prosecution. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487. The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing its lack of intent to deceive (see Dupree v Voorhees, 102 AD3d 912, 913 [2013]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact."