Summary
holding that the presentation of false documents for recordation in the City Register and the submission of a perjurious letter to the court were egregious acts of intentional deceit
Summary of this case from M.T. Packaging, Inc. v. HooOpinion
2014-09-23
MAZEL 315 WEST 35TH LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 315 W. 35TH ASSOCIATES LLC, et al., Defendants, Jon Lefkowitz, Defendant–Appellant.
Jon A. Lefkowitz, Brooklyn, appellant pro se. Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, New York (Kevin A. Fritz of counsel), for respondent.
Jon A. Lefkowitz, Brooklyn, appellant pro se. Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, New York (Kevin A. Fritz of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lawrence K. Marks, J.), entered April 24, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Lefkowitz's motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for violation of Judiciary Law § 487 as against him, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Defendant failed to demonstrate that the Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action has no merit. Plaintiff's evidence showing that defendant presented false assignment documents for recordation in the City Register and sent a letter to the justice stating falsely that his client was the true owner of the notes and mortgages establishes an egregious act of intentional deceit of the court sufficient to support the cause of action ( see Kurman v. Schnapp, 73 A.D.3d 435, 435, 901 N.Y.S.2d 17 [1st Dept.2010] ). Defendant denies that he was involved in the recordation of the false documents and asserts that he did not intend to deceive the court. These assertions are insufficient to warrant judgment as a matter of law in defendant's favor; they merely raise issues of fact. Moreover, the parties dispute many of the underlying facts of this matter, and no discovery has been conducted. Since defendant has not established that he had no intent to deceive, his contention that he is immune from liability because he was merely engaged in zealous advocacy is unavailing ( see Lazich v. Vittoria & Parker, 189 A.D.2d 753, 592 N.Y.S.2d 418 [2d Dept.1993], appeal dismissed81 N.Y.2d 1006, 599 N.Y.S.2d 805, 616 N.E.2d 160 [1993]; Alliance Network, LLC v. Sidley Austin LLP, 43 Misc.3d 848, 859–860, 987 N.Y.S.2d 794 [Sup.Ct., N.Y. County 2014] ).
Defendant's remaining arguments are unpreserved for our review and in any event without merit. FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, SAXE, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.