Last week we looked at the statute of limitations in legal malpractice and how that interacted with CPLR 203 which allowed a counterclaim as an offset.  Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP v Law Firm of Howard Mann  2016 NY Slip Op 05487  Decided on July 13, 2016
Appellate Division, Second Department also has a claim for Judiciary Law 487 which survived the motion.  We (anecdotally) think there is a trend towards more consideration of these JL 487 claims in the past year.

“The ninth counterclaim and the fourth cause of action in the third-party complaint, alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487, stated cognizable claims and, thus, the Supreme Court did not err in declining to direct that they be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) (see Palmieri v Biggiani, 108 AD3d 604; Sabalza v Salgado, 85 AD3d 436; Izko Sportswear Co., Inc. v Flaum, 25 AD3d 534; cf. Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756). For the same reason, the court also properly denied dismissal of the seventh counterclaim and the second cause of action in the third-party complaint, which alleged that the plaintiff and the third-party defendants improperly withheld portions of the defendants’ litigation file in the underlying action (see Matter of Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer, Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, 91 NY2d 30).”