Saporito v Branda 2023 NY Slip Op 00968 Decided on February 21, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department is an example of the unsuccessful use of Judiciary Law 487 claims. Courts are quick to dismiss these claims, which are not “lightly given” and rarely successful. Here the claimed deceit was an attorney telling the court that the mother in a custody dispute was “unemployed” when the mother was being offered a job as the attorneys personal assistant.
“Defendant contends that the mother did not begin working for her until September 2, 2014 and that the court did not rely on this statement because it maintained the 2-2-3 parenting schedule even after it learned of the mother’s employment.
The first cause of action under Judiciary Law § 487 was properly dismissed, as plaintiff failed to plead any cognizable damages proximately caused by the alleged false statement made by defendant to the court (see Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 15 ). The employment status of the mother of plaintiff’s child was not determinative of the court’s modification of the visitation schedule. In addition, the alleged single act of deceit was not “sufficiently egregious” to support the claim (see Strumwasser v Zeiderman, 102 AD3d 630, 631 [1st Dept 2013]). Moreover, the claim is barred as a collateral attack on orders issued in the underlying Family Court proceeding (see Specialized Indus. Servs. Corp. v Carter, 68 AD3d 750, 751-752 [2d Dept 2009]).”