On October 15, 2025, Justice Patel of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Jfurti, LLC v. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovky & Popeo, P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op. 33977(U), dismissing a Judiciary Law Section 487 claim because it was brought against the client, not its counsel, explaining:
The third cause of action is asserted by both Plaintiffs against Defendant and alleges that Defendant or its agents forged Frydman’s signature on the Transfer Request Form with the intent to deceive Plaintiffs and the Court into accepting that Defendant’s obligations to Plaintiffs terminated on May 23, 2022. Plaintiffs further allege Defendant also willfully delayed enforcing the Judgment for several years for its own gain. They seek treble damages for this claim, which they claim to be at least $165 million.
Defendant argues it is not the proper party for this claim, as the statute only applies to counsel of record during the pendency of litigation and cannot apply even to a defendant that is an attorney. Even if it was the proper party, Defendant contends that the requisite elements of this cause of action are not pleaded with particularity as required by CPLR § 3016 (b). It maintains the information and belief allegations relating to its alleged forgery and filing of the Transfer Request Form are insufficient to allege intentional deceptive conduct and that Plaintiffs fail to allege any actual damages to Plaintiffs caused by its purported deception. Plaintiffs argue in opposition that they are permitted to bring this claim based on an attempted, but unsuccessful deception and reiterate their position that Frydman did not sign the Transfer Request Form and was unaware of it before October 2024.
Judiciary Law § 487 (1) provides, in relevant part, that an attorney who is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party forfeits to the party injured treble damages. Relief under a cause of action based upon Judiciary Law § 487 is not lightly given and requires a showing of egregious conduct or a chronic and extreme pattern of behavior on the part of the defendant attorneys that caused damages. Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity the claim will be dismissed if the allegations as to scienter are conclusory and factually insufficient. The statute is only applicable to attorneys and cannot extend derivative liability to a client.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action under Judiciary Law § 487. This cause of action is asserted against Defendant rather than its counsel of record and must be dismissed as derivative liability is not permitted. A review of the NYSCEF docket shows that the Transfer Request Form and accompanying Phair Affirmation were filed by Defendant’s record counsel, Howard I. Elman of Elman Freiberg PLLC. There is no indication in the record, aside from conclusory statements in the Amended Complaint, that Defendant—not its counsel—filed or submitted the allegedly fraudulent Transfer Request Form.
The Amended Complaint also fails to plead with particularity the requisite elements of a Judiciary Law § 487 claim. The allegations about Defendant’s deceptive conduct—allegedly forging Frydman’s signature on the Transfer Request Form—and their knowing submission of that form are wholly conclusory. The pleadings also contain no allegation as to how the alleged deceptive conduct proximately caused Plaintiffs’ damages. The Court therefore grants this portion of Defendant’s motion and dismisses the third cause of action.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).