Judiciary Law 487 claims have rocketed in frequency over the past several years, which is ironic as it is a statute which first appeared in England in 1275. Here in Langton v Sussman & Watkins 2025 NY Slip Op 02765
Decided on May 7, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department the plaintiff was removed from her position as voluntary library trustee and 11 years of litigation followed. Her claims under Judiciary Law 487 were lost.

“In 2012, the plaintiff was appointed as a voluntary library trustee of the Town of Chester Library Board of Trustees (hereinafter the Library Board). In 2014, Maureen Jagos, the director of the Town of Chester Library (hereinafter the library), raised a complaint regarding the plaintiff’s conduct, which resulted in an investigation conducted by Devora Lindeman of the defendant Greenwald Doherty, LLP (hereinafter Greenwald). Following the investigation, Lindeman issued a report containing her findings and recommendations. According to a report dated July 16, 2014 (hereinafter the Lindeman report), Lindeman found that Jagos’s complaints were credible and recommended that the plaintiff be asked to resign or be offered managerial training and that the plaintiff be removed as trustee if she declined to resign or undergo training. In August 2014, the Library Board voted to remove the plaintiff from her position as voluntary library trustee.

The plaintiff subsequently retained the defendant Michael H. Sussman of the defendant Sussman & Watkins (hereinafter together the Sussman defendants) to represent her in an action she commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of 42 USC § 1983. The plaintiff commenced that action against (1) the Town of Chester and its Town Supervisor, Alex Jamieson, represented by the defendant Jonathan M. Bernstein of the defendant Goldberg Segalla (hereinafter together the Goldberg defendants), and (2) the Library Board and its President, Teresa Mallon, represented by the defendant David L. Posner of the defendant McCabe & Mack, LLP (hereinafter together the McCabe defendants).

The plaintiff also retained the defendant Neal D. Frishberg of the defendant Fabricant, Lipman, and Frishberg, LLP (hereinafter together the Frishberg defendants), to represent her in an action she commenced in the New York Supreme Court to recover damages for defamation (hereinafter the defamation action). The plaintiff commenced the defamation action against, among others, Jamieson. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that Jamieson made false statements to a local newspaper and reporter regarding Lindeman’s findings and that Lindeman did not, in actuality, find that Jagos’s complaint against the plaintiff was credible. The plaintiff subsequently discharged the Frishberg defendants as her counsel in the defamation action and proceeded pro se.

Thereafter, Jamieson and other defendants separately moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in the defamation action insofar as asserted against each of them. In an affidavit submitted in support of Jamieson’s motion, Lindeman averred, among other things, that the Lindeman report, which accompanied her affidavit and was initialed by her on each page, was authentic. In opposition to Jamieson’s motion, the plaintiff asserted, inter alia, that the Lindeman report was a “forgery” and that an “authentic” report issued by Lindeman existed, which made findings in the plaintiff’s favor. The plaintiff did not submit a copy of the alleged authentic report. In an order dated April 3, 2017, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted the separate motions of Jamieson and other defendants, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in the defamation action insofar as asserted against each of them. In that order, the court determined that “[t]he defendants have conclusively established” that Jamieson’s statements regarding the Lindeman report were “an accurate account of the report of the investigation conducted regarding the plaintiff.”

In August 2020, the plaintiff commenced the instant action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of Judiciary Law § 487 against the Sussman defendants, the Frishberg defendants, the Goldberg defendants, the McCabe defendants, and Greenwald and its partner, Kevin M. Doherty (hereinafter together the Greenwald defendants). The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants colluded with each other to conceal the alleged authentic version of the Lindeman report and to present a fraudulent report that resulted in the plaintiff’s removal as voluntary library trustee.”

“Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487, an attorney who is “guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party” is liable to the injured party for treble damages (see Guliyev v Banilov & Assoc., P.C., 221 AD3d 589, 591). “‘A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 requires an intent to deceive'” (id., quoting Moormann v Perini & Hoerger, 65 AD3d 1106, 1108). “‘Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity'” (Guliyev v Banilov & Assoc., P.C., 221 AD3d at 591, quoting Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 164 AD3d 635, 637, affd 25 NY3d 173). Further, “‘an injury to the plaintiff resulting from the alleged deceitful conduct of the defendant attorney is an essential element of a cause of action based on a violation’ of Judiciary Law § 487” (Maroulis v Sari M. Friedman, P.C., 153 AD3d 1250, 1252 [alteration omitted], quoting Rozen v Russ & Russ, P.C., 76 AD3d 965, 968). “Thus, to state a cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487, the plaintiff must ‘plead allegations from which damages attributable to the defendants’ conduct might be reasonably inferred'” (Maroulis v Sari M. Friedman, P.C., 153 AD3d at 1252, quoting Mizuno [*3]v Nunberg, 122 AD3d 594, 595). Here, the plaintiff failed to allege sufficiently specific facts from which it could be reasonably inferred either that the defendants acted with the requisite degree of scienter or that the alleged acts of deceit were the proximate cause of any injury to the plaintiff (see Pinkesz Mut. Holdings, LLC v Pinkesz, 198 AD3d 693, 697-698; Sammy v Haupel, 170 AD3d 1224, 1225).”