Judiciary Law 487, one of the oldest statutes in the Anglo-American law remains imprecise and widely available to interpretation.  in Strumwasser v Zeiderman ; 2012 NY Slip Op 30772(U)
March 15, 2012 ;Supreme Court, New York County ; Docket Number: 113524/2010;
Judge: Joan A. Madden we see the Court struggling with the question of whether an unstated "extreme chronicity" need be shown.  The statute does not state this element, and while some courts have grafted it onto JL 487, there seems to be no doctrinal basis for it at all.

"The complaint in this action asserts, inter alia, causes of action against J&C for alleged violations of Judiciary Law  487. In its original decision, the court granted J&C’s motion to dismiss the complaint against it, including the claims for violations of Judiciary Law 487, the subject of this motion. The court based its dismissal of the Judiciary Law  487 claims on plaintiffs failure “to articulate or allege a chronic or extreme pattern of behavior on the part of J&C.” Cohen v Law Off ices of Leonard & Robert Shapiro. 18 AD3d 219,220 ( lst Dept 2005). See also Markand v. Bloom, 4 AD3d 128 (1st Dept 2004) Havell v Islam, 292 AD2d 210 (lst Dept, 2002)

Plaintiff now moves for re argument, asserting that a violation of Judiciary Law  487
does not require a showing of a chronic or extreme pattern of behavior but only an intentional
deceit or collusion by an attorney. J&C opposes the motion, citing case law in  the Appellate Division, First Department supporting the court’s interpretation of Judiciary Law  487 and argues that, in any event, no deceit of the kind required by Judiciary Law 487 has been shown.

Although the statute does not expressly require a pattern of chronic delinquency, in certain instances, the Appellate Division, First Department, has made it a prerequisite to recovery.See Dinhofer v, Medical Liability Mut. Ins. Co. , 92 AD3d 480 ( lst Dept 2012); Nason v. Fisher 36 AD3d 486 (1 Dept 2007), but see, Scarborough v Napoli, Kaiser & Bern,LLP, 63 AD3d 1531 [4th Dept 2009); Izko Sportswear CQ,. Inc, v Flaum. 25 AD3d 534 (2d Dept 2006);Amalfitano v, Rosenberg, 533 F3d 117 (2d Cir 2008).

Here, plaintiff makes no claim of chronic delinquency or a pattern of misconduct. Moreover, plaintiffs’ claims under Judiciary Law  487 fail to allege the type of intentional, egregious conduct required to permit recovery under the statute. Specifically, plaintiffs assertions that J&C did not include a page of plaintiffs own business plan stating that the plan was informational purposes in connection with a motion by plaintiff to be relieved of an appraiser’s fee is insufficient to allege the type of conduct sufficient to provide a basis for a claim under Judiciary Law 487. See Ticketmaster v. Lidsky, 245 AD2d 142 (1“ Dept 1997)  holding that “[a]ssertion of unfounded allegations in a pleading, even if made for improper purposes, does not provide a basis for liability under Judiciary Law 487”); O’CalIaghan v. Sifre, 537 FSupp2d 594, 596 (S.D. N.Y. 2008)(noting that “by confining the reach of [Judiciary Law  487 to intentional egregious misconduct, this rigorous standard affords attorneys wide latitude in the course of litigation to engage in written and oral expression consistent with responsible, vigorous advocacy”); compare Scarboroyd v Napoli, Kaiser & Bern. J.LP, 63 AD3d 1531 (denying summary judgment to attorney where record showed that medical malpractice case was dismissed for failure to file a timely note of issue and defendant attorneys asked client to sign a stipulation of discontinuance informing him he could not prevail on the action but not telling him the reason for the dismissal.

‘Although the Second Circuit noted that the pattern of behavior requirement was not in
the text of Judiciary Law 487, it also acknowledged that New York courts, including the First
Department, have required it in certain instances. Furthermore, in the case before it, the District
Court found a “‘persistent pattern of unethical behavior”’ that “constituted ‘a chronic, extreme
Rosenberg, 428 FSupp2d 196,203 (SDNY 2006), and the only issue before the Second Circuit
was whether an attorney’s attempted, but unsuccessful, deceit violated Judiciary Law  487,
which it certified for the New York Court of Appeals. See Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8
(2009)(holding that an attempted, but unsuccessful, deceit may provide a basis for a claim under
Judiciary Law 487). pattern of legal delinquency.”