Gillen v. McCarron
| Decision Date | 04 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2013-06370 |
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01781,126 A.D.3d 670,6 N.Y.S.3d 253 |
| Parties | Thomas J. GILLEN, etc., appellant, v. John T. McCARRON, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
126 A.D.3d 670
6 N.Y.S.3d 253
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01781
Thomas J. GILLEN, etc., appellant
v.
John T. McCARRON, et al., respondents.
2013-06370
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
March 4, 2015.
Charles G. Mills, Glen Cove, N.Y., for appellant.
L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Matthew J. Bizzaro of counsel), for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for violation of Judiciary Law § 487, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (LaSalle, J.), dated March 18, 2013,
which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The complaint is premised on allegations that the defendants violated Judiciary Law § 487 by making false statements during the course of various prior actions and proceedings regarding the occupancy of certain real property. In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not act with any “intent to deceive” the court or the plaintiff in the previous proceedings (Judiciary Law § 487[1] ; see Cullin v. Spiess, 122 A.D.3d 792, 793, 997 N.Y.S.2d 460 ; Tenore v. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., 121 A.D.3d 775, 994 N.Y.S.2d 171 ; Dupree v. Voorhees, 102 A.D.3d 912, 959 N.Y.S.2d 235 ). Moreover, the defendants established that the plaintiff was aware of the alleged violations of Judiciary Law § 487 when they occurred, and addressed most of them in the course...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmieri v. Perry, Van Etten, Rozanski & Primavera, LLP
...section 487, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with intent to deceive him or her or the court (see Gillen v. McCarron, 126 A.D.3d 670, 671, 6 N.Y.S.3d 253 ; Cullin v. Spiess, 122 A.D.3d 792, 793, 997 N.Y.S.2d 460 ; Dupree v. Voorhees, 102 A.D.3d 912, 913, 959 N.Y.S.2d 235 ). ......
-
Kaufman v. Moritt Hock & Hamroff, LLP
...Surrogate's Court matters (cf. Urias v. Daniel P. Buttafuoco & Assoc., PLLC, 173 A.D.3d 1244, 1246, 104 N.Y.S.3d 712 ; Gillen v. McCarron, 126 A.D.3d 670, 6 N.Y.S.3d 253 ). Nevertheless, the complaint, even when construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Leon v. Martinez, 8......
-
Doscher v. Mannatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
...denied (see Pentalpha Enters., Ltd. v. Cooper & Dunham LLP, 91 A.D.3d 451, 936 N.Y.S.2d 173 [1st Dept.2012] ; Gillen v. McCarron, 126 A.D.3d 670, 6 N.Y.S.3d 253 [2d Dept.2015] ; God's Battalion of Prayer Pentecostal Church, Inc. v. Hollander, 24 Misc.3d 1250[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 51939[U],......
-
Palmieri v. Perry
...under section 487, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with intent to deceive him or her or the court (see Gillen v McCarron, 126 A.D.3d 670, 671; Cullin Spiess, 122 A.D.3d 792, 793; Dupree v Voorhees, 102 A.D.3d 912, 913). "Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to d......