Our survey of all the 2016 Judiciary Law cases continues with:

15.  M.T. Packaging, Inc. v Fung Kai Hoo    2016 NY Slip Op 31189(U)  June 23, 2016
Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 652579/2014  Judge: Cynthia S. Kern  A contract case concerning bags and packaging sales was based on a claim that the bags had levels of lead and chromium that exceeded legal limits, despite provision of certificates attesting to their safety.  Plaintiff was allowed to bring in an attorney from a related case: “In the present case, the portion of M.T.’s motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a cause of action for the violation of Judiciary Law § 487(1) against Maidenbaum is granted as defendants have shown that no prejudice or surprise would result from the proposed amendment and that the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or clearly .devoid of merit. M. T. ‘s cause of action for the violation of Judiciary Law § 487(1) is not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit as it alleges in its proposed amended complaint that Maidenbaum engaged in deceitful conduct in violation of Judiciary Law§ 487(1) by withholding documents, including I documents that allegedly controverted its client’s claims, during discovery in the related action and submitting penurious affidavits wherein Hoo stated that he was only .in New York to attend the deposition in the instant action. Taking M.T.’s allegations as true for the purpose of deciding the instant motion, M.T. has stated a cause of action for the violation of Judiciary Law§ 487(1). ”

16.  Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Titan Ins. Co.  2016 NY Slip Op 26211 [53 Misc 3d 216]  June 30, 2016  Montelione, J.  This case mentions JL § 487, but only in a passing reference which says that attorneys are subject to penalties if they lie.

17. Stock v Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP  2016 NY Slip Op 05247 [142 AD3d 210]  June 30, 2016  Friedman, J.  Appellate Division, First Department   “The primary issue on this appeal is whether attorneys who have sought the advice of their law firm’s in-house general counsel on their ethical obligations in representing a firm client may successfully invoke attorney-client privilege to resist the client’s demand for the disclosure of communications seeking or giving such advice. We hold that such communications are not subject to disclosure to the client under the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege (recognized in Hoopes v Carota, 142 AD2d 906 [3d Dept 1988], affd 74 NY2d 716 [1989]) because, for purposes of the in-firm consultation on the ethical issue, the attorneys seeking the general counsel’s advice, as well as the firm itself, were the general counsel’s “ ’real clients’ ” (United States v Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 US 162, 172 [2011] [Apache Nation], quoting Riggs Natl. Bank of Washington, D.C. v Zimmer, 355 A2d 709, 711-712 [Del Ch 1976]). Further, we decline to adopt the “current client exception,” under which a number of courts of other jurisdictions (see e.g. Bank Brussels Lambert v Credit Lyonnais [Suisse], 220 F Supp 2d 283 [SD NY 2002]) have held a former client entitled to disclosure by a law firm of any in-firm communications relating to the client that took place while the firm was representing{**142 AD3d at 213} that client. Because we also find unavailing the former client’s remaining arguments for compelling the law firm and one of its attorneys to disclose the in-firm attorney-client communications in question, we reverse the order appealed from and deny the motion to compel.”  There is a passing reference to a claim of JL 487 for “attempting to cover up the malpractice .”  Nothing more is said of the statute.