Judiciary Law § 487 is ancient, strict and sparse.  It rarely succeeds and in Kaufman v Moritt Hock & Hamroff, LLP  2021 NY Slip Op 01969 [192 AD3d 1092] March 31, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department is denied outright.

“Relief pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 “is not lightly given” (Chowaiki & Co. Fine Art Ltd. v Lacher, 115 AD3d 600, 601 [2014]), and requires a showing of “egregious conduct or a chronic and extreme pattern of behavior on the part of the defendant attorneys” (Savitt v Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 126 AD3d 506, 507 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US], 134 AD3d 610, 615 [2015]; Wailes v Tel Networks USA, LLC, 116 AD3d 625, 625-626 [2014]). “A cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 must be pleaded with specificity” (Betz v Blatt, 160 AD3d 696, 698 [2018]; see Sammy v Haupel, 170 AD3d 1224, 1225 [2019]).

The complaint essentially alleges only that in the underlying Surrogate’s Court [*2]matters, the defendants advocated for certain legal and factual positions on behalf of their client. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, finding that these allegations, even if proven, would not entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 (see Sammy v Haupel, 170 AD3d at 1225-1226; Seldon v Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, 116 AD3d 490, 491 [2014]; Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759 [2014]; see also Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 164 AD3d 635, 636-637 [2018], affd 35 NY3d 173 [2020]).”