Judiciary Law 487 is tantalizingly raised, but not resolved in Solomon v Silverstein 
2017 NY Slip Op 51400(U)   Decided on October 11, 2017  Supreme Court, Richmond County
Minardo, J., the story of two sisters feuding over the care and assistance of their mother.  Mom deposited $ 40,000 and the question is whether the two daughters share or one takes all.

They litigated in Surrogate’s Court and now are litigating in Supreme Court.  If they are paying attorneys by the hour, surely the fees have overtaken the $ 40,000.  Here, defendant counterclaimed for JL § 487 because plaintiff’s attorney verified the complaint.  Supreme Court noted and ignored the motion to dismiss this counterclaim.

“Turning to the cross motion which is presently before the Court, plaintiff seeks an order [*5](1) pursuant to CPLR §§ 3124 and 3126, striking the counterclaim of defendant, ^[FN2] (2) striking defendant’s affirmative defenses for failure to adequately respond to plaintiff’s demand for bill of particulars and notice for discovery and inspection, (3) precluding defendant from offering evidence at trial in defense of this action for failing to timely and adequately respond to the above demands, (4) for sanctions against defendant for her frivolous, libelous and baseless counterclaim, and (5) enlarging plaintiff’s time to e-file her affidavit of service in this action.

Without addressing the merits of defendant’s purported counterclaim, this Court will not impose the penalties sought pursuant CPLR § 3126 (2) and (3) absent a showing by plaintiff that defendant wilfully failed to disclose information or refused to obey an order for disclosure. As such, the branch of the cross motion which seeks this relief and sanctions must be denied without prejudice. The branch of the cross motion which is to compel disclosure pursuant to CPLR § 3124 is granted solely to the extent that this matter shall be set down for a compliance conference on ______”

“Footnote 2:Defendant’s counterclaim to recover damages in the amount of $100,000.00 is predicated upon her attorney’s alleged violation of the Judiciary Law § 487 and the doctrine of respondeat superior. Defendant asserts that the verification of the complaint by plaintiff’s attorney is patently false and made with the intent to deceive the court, which constitutes “wrongful and morally culpable conduct” for which plaintiff is responsible.”