Imagine that Wife owns a co-operative apartment and has some undefined problems there. Litigation ensues, and at a settlement conference her husband, who is not a party, is escorted from the robing room because of disruptive conduct.  Rather than simply remain calm, or fume, husband, who has a rich history of litigating frivolous issues, sues everyone, including the Court attorney.  What should happen?

In Pettus v Mazzola  2015 NY Slip Op 51841(U)  Decided on December 16, 2015  Supreme Court, Bronx County  Thompson, J. applied the traditional pleading rules, which exist in part to winnow the wide open use of litigation for unsuitable cases.

“This proceeding arose as a result of alleged actions that occurred in an action held before Justice John Barone, which was brought by Pettus’ wife. Pettus asserts he was acting as his wife’s attorney in the underlying proceeding, when Quaranta had him removed from the judge’s robing room during a settlement conference for his alleged disruptive behavior. Pettus was not a party to the underlying proceeding.”

“Since Pettus was not a litigant in the underlying action he lacks standing to bring this proceeding, as he had no “injury in fact” and is precluded from adjudicating his claims of injury. (Hill v. Reynolds, 187 AD2d 299, 300 [1st Dept 1992]).

Moreover, Pettus’ petition fails to state a cause of action. With respect to defamation, his petition fails to state with particularity the defamatory words that were spoken. CPLR 3016. With respect to Pettus claim of legal malpractice, “no attorney-client relationship existed between these parties.” Jane St. Co. v. Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 192 AD2d 451, 451, 597 N.Y.S.2d 17 (1993).

With respect to Pettus’ claims for fraud, deceit, or a scheme to defraud, “a mere recitation of the elements of fraud is insufficient to state a cause of action. (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v Christopher Assoc., 257 AD2d 1, 9 [1999]). Furthermore, a plaintiff seeking to recover for fraud and misrepresentation is required “to set forth specific and detailed factual allegations that the defendant personally participated in, or had knowledge of any alleged fraud” (Handel v Bruder, 209 AD2d 282, 282-283 [1994]).” Friedman v. Anderson, 23 AD3d 163, 166 [1st Dept 2005]).”

“With respect to petitioner’s claims of a “violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as alleged by the plaintiff, does not, in itself, give rise to a private cause of action against an attorney or law firm (Drago v Buonagurio, 46 NY2d 778).” (Weintraub v. Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim, & Ballon, 172 AD2d 254 [1st Dept 1991]).

With respect to Pettus’ claim of discrimination, racial animus and retaliation, petitioner’s “failure to adequately plead discriminatory animus is similarly fatal to [his] claims of hostile work environment (see Chin v New York City Hous. Auth., 106 AD3d 443, 445 [1st Dept 2013]).” Askin v. Dep’t of Educ. of City of New York, 110 AD3d 621, 622 [1st Dept 2013]).”