Judiciary Law §487, which regulates and punishes attorney deceit is a statute which is not “light granted.”  In this case, we see that the mere production of fraudulent documents  may not be enough to hold the producing attorneys under the statute.

Specialized Indus. Servs. Corp. v Carter  2015 NY Slip Op 06912 [131 AD3d 1162]  September 23, 2015 , Appellate Division, Second Department mere waves away the claim.  “Specialized Industrial Services Corp. (hereinafter Specialized), commenced this action against Benjamin E. Carter seeking, inter alia, to recover damages for a violation of Judiciary Law § 487. In its amended complaint, Specialized alleged that at an inquest on damages in a prior action, in which it was the defendant and Carter represented the plaintiff, Carter knowingly introduced fraudulent documents which served as the basis for a judgment entered against it. Specialized further alleged that this was part of a larger scheme consisting of two other lawsuits wherein Carter was involved in the use of fabricated evidence to create or inflate damages.

Carter established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that he did not act with any “intent to deceive” (Judiciary Law § 487 [1]; see Gillen v McCarron, 126 AD3d 670, 671 [2015]; Cullin v Spiess, 122 AD3d 792, 793 [2014]; Tenore v Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., 121 AD3d 775 [2014]; Dupree v Voorhees, 102 AD3d 912 [2013]). In opposition to Carter’s prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Carter’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.”