Bienvenido Robert Polanco Salas v 711-715 E 231st Street, LLC, et al.; 711-715 E 231st Street, LLC, et al. v Roytblat Law Group, PLLC, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Litigation misconduct and attorney liability arising from an allegedly staged trip-and-fall personal injury action, including whether plaintiff's counsel could be sued under Judiciary Law § 487 [makes an attorney who engages in deceit or collusion with intent to deceive the court or any party liable in a civil action for treble damages and guilty of a misdemeanor].
The Supreme Court, Bronx County denied the motions by Roytblat Law Group, Alexander Roytblat, and Jennifer Lebron to dismiss the third-party complaint asserted against them.
The Appellate Division reversed that order and granted dismissal of the third-party complaint as against Roytblat and Lebron; it specifically held that the common-law fraud claim must be dismissed without leave to replead, and it also dismissed the Judiciary Law § 487, civil conspiracy, and intentional property damage claims.
The court found that the third-party plaintiffs did not plead nonconclusory facts showing egregious deceit, deliberate misrepresentations to the court or defendants, or sufficient facts that Roytblat knowingly continued a fraudulent claim after learning it was fabricated. The fraud claim also failed because defendants did not justifiably rely on any alleged misrepresentation and did not plead recoverable damages, particularly since they denied the alleged misrepresentations in their answer.
Background
The underlying case was a sidewalk trip-and-fall action brought by plaintiff Bienvenido Robert Polanco Salas against property-related defendants. Those defendants then filed a third-party complaint against plaintiff's counsel, Roytblat Law Group and Alexander Roytblat, as well as Jennifer Lebron and others, alleging that the accident had been staged and that the sidewalk defect had been deliberately created. According to the third-party pleading, video footage showed investigator Wilson Pena creating the defect and plaintiff pretending to fall. Defendants further alleged that they notified Roytblat in February 2024 that the claim was fraudulent, yet Roytblat continued to prosecute the action until a news report was about to air. Based on those allegations, defendants asserted causes of action including Judiciary Law § 487, common-law fraud, civil conspiracy, and intentional property damage.
Lower Court Decision
The trial court refused to dismiss the third-party complaint against Roytblat and Lebron, allowing the claims to go forward at the pleading stage.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed on the law and granted the dismissal motions. The majority held that the third-party plaintiffs failed to allege the kind of egregious conduct or chronic and extreme pattern required for a Judiciary Law § 487 claim, and failed to plead with sufficient particularity that Roytblat made deliberate misrepresentations to the court or to defendants. The court also held that the pleading did not nonconclusorily allege that Roytblat knowingly continued the trip-and-fall case after receiving reliable information that it was fraudulent. As to common-law fraud, the court found no justifiable reliance or recoverable damages because defendants did not accept the alleged misrepresentations but instead denied them in their answer. Because the primary tort theories failed, the derivative claims for civil conspiracy and intentional property damage were also dismissed as against Roytblat and Lebron. Justice O'Neill Levy, joined by Justice Moulton, dissented in part and would have allowed the Judiciary Law § 487 claim to proceed based on the detailed allegations about the video evidence, notice to counsel, and continued litigation activity thereafter.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores the strict pleading burden for suing opposing counsel under Judiciary Law § 487. Allegations that a lawyer pursued a weak or even fraudulent case are not enough unless the pleading specifically shows intentional deceit directed at the court or a party and sufficiently pleads scienter. The decision also reinforces that common-law fraud cannot be maintained where the claimant did not rely on the alleged false statements, especially where the claimant contemporaneously denied them in the underlying litigation.
A party seeking to hold opposing counsel liable for litigation deceit must plead concrete, particularized facts showing knowing and intentional deception; suspicion that counsel pressed a fabricated claim, without adequately pleaded deceit, reliance, and damages, will not survive dismissal.