As often happens, Courts and Appellate Courts determine that a claim of deceit often find the claims “conclusory” and dismiss. Palmieri v Perry, Van Etten, Rozanski & Primavera, LLP 2021 NY Slip Op 06852 [200 AD3d 785] December 8, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department is one such case.
“In a prior lawsuit, the plaintiff sought to recover damages against the Town of Babylon based upon unlawful entry on his property by various individuals using a public access way from a public road. That prior lawsuit was settled by a stipulation in which the Town agreed, inter alia, to erect a fence, then litigation ensued regarding the Town’s failure to erect the fence. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, who were the attorneys representing the Town in the prior proceedings. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants intentionally deprived him of his right to have the fence erected in a timely manner, and that they conspired using fraud and deceit to prevent the installation of the fence. The complaint purports to assert causes of action alleging, inter alia, abuse of process, conspiracy, fraud/collusion, respondeat superior, violation of Judiciary Law § 487, tortious interference with contract, trespass, [*2]and conversion. In an order dated December 7, 2017, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint. A judgment entered upon the order on February 22, 2018, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.”
“Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487, an attorney who “[i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party . . . [i]s guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor by the penal law, he forfeits to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action.” In order to establish liability under section 487, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with intent to deceive him or her or the court (see Gillen v McCarron, 126 AD3d 670, 671 ; Cullin v Spiess, 122 AD3d 792, 793 ; Dupree v Voorhees, 102 AD3d 912, 913 ). “Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity” (Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 164 AD3d 635, 637 , affd 35 NY3d 173 ). Here, the plaintiff’s conclusory allegations were insufficient to state a cause of action alleging violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Klein v Rieff, 135 AD3d 910, 912 ; Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759 ).”