Judiciary Law §487 is an ancient part of the common law, so old that it was enacted merely 30 years after the Magna Carta.  That’s old!  Here, in Ehrenkranz v 58 MHR, LLC  2018 NY Slip Op 01902    Decided on March 21, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department applied its version of JL 487 (which differs from the First Department’s version) and found that while there may have been some confusion, there was no intent to deceive.

“The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of LePatner’s motion which was to dismiss the 16th cause of action in the third-party complaint, although the dismissal should have been pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and not CPLR 3211(a)(1) (see Smalls v St. John’s Episcopal Hosp., 152 AD3d 629). Accepting the facts alleged in the third-party complaint as true, and according the third-party plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88; Raach v SLSJET Mgt. Corp., 134 AD3d 792, 793), the third-party complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to find that LePatner acted “with intent to deceive the court or any party” (Judiciary Law § 487; see Klein v Rieff, 135 AD3d 910; Savitt v Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 126 AD3d 506; Fleyshman v Suckle & Schlesinger, PLLC, 91 AD3d 591, 592-593).”