Tueme v Lezama 2023 NY Slip Op 03036 [217 AD3d 715] June 7, 2023
Appellate Division, Second Department touches on false arrest, malicious prosecution, negligent infliction of emotional distress and violation of Judiciary Law 487.

One of the claims against the attorneys was that the attorney gave false testimony in a criminal case against him. This was determined to be insufficient to invoke Judiciary Law 487,

“Further, the Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the attorney defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the causes of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of Judiciary Law § 487 insofar [*3]as asserted against them. With respect to the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action, the improper conduct alleged was not “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community” (Howell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 122 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matthaus v Hadjedj, 148 AD3d 425, 425-426 [2017]; Zapata v Tufenkjian, 123 AD3d 814, 816 [2014]). With respect to the Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action, the plaintiff failed to allege with specificity any material misstatements of fact made by the attorney defendants in the divorce action with the intent to deceive that court (see Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 35 NY3d 173, 178 [2020]; see also Looff v Lawton, 97 NY 478, 482 [1884]). Moreover, to the extent the plaintiff alleged that Navins gave false testimony as a witness in a criminal case against him, such an allegation cannot properly form the basis of a Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action (see generally Altman v DiPreta, 204 AD3d 965, 969 [2022]).”