Nasca v Greene 2023 NY Slip Op 02317 Decided on May 3, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department discusses the reach of Judiciary Law 487. Not all deceitful acts are subject to JL 487 claims.

“

In February 2019, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of Judiciary Law § 487 and unjust enrichment, alleging, among other things, that the plaintiff obtained a lien on certain real property owned by nonparty John Finocchio, and that the defendant attorneys colluded with Finocchio to transfer title to that property to nonparty 40-19 Realty, LLC (hereinafter the LLC), to circumvent the plaintiff’s lien. Thereafter, the defendants moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. In an order dated January 8, 2020, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the causes of action alleging violation of Judiciary Law § 487 and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff appeals.

“An attorney is liable under Judiciary Law § 487(1) if he or she is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party” (Long Is. Med. Anesthesiology, P.C. v Rosenberg Fortuna & Laitman, LLP, 191 AD3d 864, 866 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]). “A cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 must be pleaded with specificity” (Betz v Blatt, 160 AD3d 696, 698; see Long Is. Med. Anesthesiology, P.C. v Rosenberg Fortuna & Laitman, LLP, 191 AD3d at 866). Further, except where there is deceit directed against a court, Judiciary Law § 487 “applies only to wrongful conduct by an attorney in an action that is actually pending” (Mahler v Campagna, 60 AD3d 1009, 1012-1013; see Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 35 NY3d 173, 178; Meimeteas v Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, 105 AD3d 643, 643). Here, the plaintiff failed to allege wrongful conduct by the defendants during the course of a pending judicial proceeding or directed against a court. Rather, the alleged wrongful conduct involved the drafting of title documents and the securing of a mortgage, which occurred outside of a judicial proceeding (see Costalas v Amalfitano, 305 AD2d 202, 204; Hansen v Caffry, 280 AD2d 704, 705). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted [*2]that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging violation of Judiciary Law § 487 for failure to state a cause of action.”