When plaintiff pro-se’s legal expert says there were 20 defaults, was this a flight of fancy or a typo in which there were two defaults?  Either way, the case is headed for dismissal rather than summary judgment.

 Ziemianowicz v Janowski  2019 NY Slip Op 30326(U)  February 6, 2019 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 521427/2016  Judge: Loren Baily-Schiffman reads as if defendant will now move for summary judgment on the argument that plaintiff owed the real estate broker a commission, and would never have won the underlying case.

Of special interest is the Court’s discussion of Judiciary Law § 487 and its “only acceptable standard”.  “The law is clearly established that the only acceptable liability standard recognized to
support a claim that an attorney violated § 487 of the Judiciary Law is an intent to deceive.
Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 (2009}. Aristakesian v Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler,
P.C., 165A.D.3d1023, 1025 (2d Dept 2018). Moreover, “[a]llegations regarding an act of
deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity.” Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP
[US], 134 AD3d 610, 615 {2d Dept 2015). The allegations supporting Plaintiff’s claim that
Defendant violated Judiciary Law§ 487 do not set forth any facts from which an intent to
deceive could be inferred. Aristakesian v Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., supra at 1025. ”