Two items caught our notice this morning, and though unrelated, sound a similar theme.  Fraud on the Court in one and feigned issues of fact in the other compliment the idea of how the truth divining process happens in litigation. Somehow, even creakily, the process of cross-examination and discovery seem to work.

In Scheuer v. General Motors, this morning’s New York Law Journal, in an article by Mark Hamblett reports that Judge Furman basically called a halt to the case to look at whether Mr. & Mrs. Scheuer had committed  “fraud on the court and on the jury” in possibly misrepresenting their injuries and the financial consequences of those injuries by having “altered or fabricated a $ 441,431 check stub from the federal government’s retirement account” and fooling around with text messages.  Things, as one might guess, are not going well for plaintiff in this case.

Not as bad for plaintiff in Law Off. of Zachary R. Greenhill, P.C. v Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc.  2016 NY Slip Op 30078(U)  January 7, 2016  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 650414/2014  Judge: Charles E. Ramos, the case nevertheless hit a brick wall, where the judge found that: “At issue is whether there is a triable dispute regarding Mr. Greenhill’s status as an officer, partner, and/or manager of Dwight China. In the Underlying Action, Mr. Greenhill plainly admitted in his pleadings and sworn testimony to being President of Dwight China (Affirmation of Kevin Mattessich [“Mattessich affu], Ex. A, ~21; Mattessich aff, Ex. E, ~41). Greenhill’s statements to the contrary in the affidavits filed in this action are merely attempts to create a feigned issue of fact. Moreover, Mr. Greenhill himself produced documents in the Underlying Action that he had signed in his capacity as President of Dwight China (Mattessich aff, Ex. E, ¶41).

The judge went on to say: “Greenhill is attempting to feign an issue of fact regarding the Greenhills’ equity interest in Dwight China by contradicting prior admissions in the Underlying Action. These prior admissions, proffered through affidavit testimony, constitute findings of fact. Mr. Greenhill’s own admissions in the Underlying Action, and not his most recent affidavits, are undisputed facts for purposes of this §3212 motion (see Harty, 294 AD2d at 298; Rubin, 305 NY at 306).”