Dupree v. Voorhees

Citation102 A.D.3d 912,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00452,959 N.Y.S.2d 235
PartiesKristin DUPREE, appellant, v. Oliver Raymond VOORHEES III, defendant, Karyn A. Villar, et al., respondents.
Decision Date30 January 2013
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Kenneth Cooperstein, Centerport, N.Y., for appellant.

Phillips, Weiner, Artura & Cox, Lindenhurst, N.Y. (Michael S. Cox of counsel), for respondents.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of Judiciary Law § 487, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), dated January 5, 2012, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Karyn A. Villar and Dorothy A. Courten, or, in the alternative, to preclude the use of expert testimony at trial.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to preclude the use of expert testimony at trial is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Karyn A. Villar and Dorothy A. Courten. Villar represented the plaintiff's former husband in an underlying matrimonial action. The plaintiff alleges that Villar violated Judiciary Law § 487 in the course of that representation, and that Courten, Villar's law partner, is vicariously liable for Villar's alleged wrongdoing. Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487(1), [a]n attorney or counselor who ... [i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party ... [i]s guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor by the penal law, he forfeits to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action” (Judiciary Law § 487[1] [emphasis added] ). Here, the plaintiff failed to sustain her initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether Villar intended to deceive the court or any party ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). To the limited extent that decisions of this Court have recognized an alternative predicate for liability under Judiciary Law § 487 based upon an attorney's “chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency” ( Rock City Sound, Inc. v. Bashian & Farber, LLP, 74 A.D.3d 1168, 1172, 903 N.Y.S.2d 517 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Boglia v. Greenberg, 63 A.D.3d 973, 975, 882 N.Y.S.2d 215;Pui Sang Lai v. Shuk Yim Lau, 50 A.D.3d 758, 759, 855 N.Y.S.2d 615;Izko Sportswear Co., Inc. v. Flaum, 25 A.D.3d 534, 537, 809 N.Y.S.2d 119;Knecht v. Tusa, 15 A.D.3d 626, 627, 789 N.Y.S.2d 904), they should not be followed, as the only liability standard recognized in Judiciary Law § 487 is that of an intent to deceive ( see Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 533 F.3d 117, 123).

The Supreme Court's determination denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to preclude the use of expert testimony at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Palmieri v. Biggiani
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 10 Julio 2013
    ...the Supreme Court into believing that the defendant originally had sufficient cause to be relieved as counsel ( see Dupree v. Voorhees, 102 A.D.3d 912, 913, 959 N.Y.S.2d 235). Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the cause of ......
  • MTGLQ Inv'rs v. Gross
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 9 Mayo 2022
    ...the Mortgage and Note, (see Deutshe Bank Nat'l. Trust Co. v. Whalen, 107 A.D.3d 931 citing cf Deutshe Bank Nat'l. Trust Co. v. Spanos, 102 A.D.3d at 912). Furthermore, as a general matter, once a promissory note is tendered to and accepted by an assignee, the mortgage passes as an incident ......
  • Scott v. E. Hope Greenberg, Capitol Disc. Corp., 15-CV-05527 (MKB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 31 Marzo 2017
    ...for the proposition that a single deceitful statement can trigger [section] 487 liability." (citations omitted)); Dupree v. Voorhees, 959 N.Y.S.2d 235, 913 (App. Div. 2013) ("To the limited extent that decisions of this Court have recognized an alternative predicate for liability under Judi......
  • U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Nicholson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 12 Noviembre 2013
    ...prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation" (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Spanos, 102 A.D.3d at 912, 961 N.Y.S.2d200 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see HSBC Bank USA v. Hernandez, 92 A.D.3d 843, 844, 939 N.Y.S.2d 120; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Does N.Y. Judiciary Law §487 Apply To Arbitrations?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 6 Enero 2016
    ...expansively, concluding that a single act of "intentional deceit" may be enough to impose liability. See, e.g., Dupree v. Voorhees, 102 A.D.3d 912, 913 (2d Dept. 2013) (the "alternative predicate for liability under Judiciary Law §487 based upon an attorney's chronic, extreme pattern of leg......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT