Salas v 711-715 E 231st Street, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
This case concerns alleged fraudulent personal injury litigation and whether attorneys for the injured plaintiff can be sued by the property-owner defendants for deceit under Judiciary Law § 487 [attorney deceit statute providing civil liability and treble damages for deceit or collusion intended to mislead the court or a party], common-law fraud, civil conspiracy, and intentional property damage.
The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the motions by Roytblat Law Group, PLLC, Alexander Roytblat, and Jennifer Lebron to dismiss the third-party complaint against them.
The Appellate Division reversed that order and granted the dismissal motions, directing entry of judgment accordingly.
The majority held that the third-party plaintiffs did not adequately plead egregious deceit or deliberate misrepresentations sufficient for a Judiciary Law § 487 claim, did not plead in a nonconclusory way that Roytblat knowingly continued a fraudulent trip-and-fall action after learning of the alleged fraud, and failed to plead justifiable reliance and recoverable damages for common-law fraud. Because the fraud-based claims failed, the civil conspiracy and intentional property damage claims against Roytblat and Lebron also had to be dismissed.
Background
Plaintiff Bienvenido Robert Polanco Salas brought an underlying trip-and-fall action against 711-715 E 231st Street, LLC and related defendants. Those defendants then commenced a third-party action against the plaintiff's attorneys, including Roytblat Law Group, PLLC, Alexander Roytblat, and Jennifer Lebron, as well as others, alleging that the underlying accident claim was staged and fraudulent. The third-party plaintiffs asserted that video evidence showed a sidewalk defect being deliberately created and the accident being feigned, and claimed that Roytblat continued prosecuting the underlying case after being informed of the alleged fraud.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court refused to dismiss the third-party complaint as against Roytblat and Lebron, allowing the claims under Judiciary Law § 487, common-law fraud, civil conspiracy, and intentional property damage to proceed at the pleading stage.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed on the law and granted dismissal of the third-party complaint as against Roytblat and Lebron. The court held that the pleading did not sufficiently allege the kind of egregious conduct or chronic extreme pattern of deceit required under Judiciary Law § 487, nor did it sufficiently allege deliberate misrepresentations to the defendants or the court. The court further held that the common-law fraud claim failed because the third-party plaintiffs did not justifiably rely on the alleged misrepresentations; instead, they expressly denied them in their answer in the underlying action, and they also failed to plead recoverable damages. The fraud claim was dismissed without leave to replead, and the remaining claims for civil conspiracy and intentional property damage were also dismissed as to Roytblat and Lebron. Two justices dissented in part, concluding that the Judiciary Law § 487 claim was adequately pleaded based on the detailed allegations and referenced video evidence.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces the demanding pleading standards for claims against attorneys under Judiciary Law § 487 [attorney deceit statute providing civil liability and treble damages for deceit or collusion intended to mislead the court or a party]. Allegations that counsel pursued a fraudulent case are not enough unless the pleading specifically and nonconclusorily shows intentional deceit, egregious misconduct, and knowledge. The case also underscores that common-law fraud requires justifiable reliance and actual damages, which are absent where the complaining party rejected the alleged falsehoods rather than relied on them.
Property-owner defendants who believe a personal injury claim was staged cannot sustain claims against opposing counsel without detailed facts showing intentional attorney deceit and reliance-based fraud. Suspicion of litigation misconduct, even when tied to alleged video evidence, is insufficient unless the pleading specifically shows that the attorneys knowingly deceived the court or a party and caused legally cognizable damages.