Opinion
11771 11771A M-1579 Index 154922/18
07-09-2020
Frank MAZZOCCHI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vivienne GILBERT, Esq., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Frank Mazzocchi, appellant pro se. Braverman Greenspun, P.C., New York (Tracy Peterson of counsel), for Vivienne Gilbert and Howard J. Lazarus, respondents. Thomas M. Curtis, respondent pro se. Anderson Kill, P.C., New York (Grant E. Brown of counsel), for Deborah B. Koplovitz, Alan M. Goldberg, Bruce A. Cholost and Andrew J. Wagner, respondents. Gallett Dreyer & Berkey, LLP, New York (Morrell I. Berkowitz of counsel), for Morrell I. Berkowitz, respondent.
Frank Mazzocchi, appellant pro se.
Braverman Greenspun, P.C., New York (Tracy Peterson of counsel), for Vivienne Gilbert and Howard J. Lazarus, respondents.
Thomas M. Curtis, respondent pro se.
Anderson Kill, P.C., New York (Grant E. Brown of counsel), for Deborah B. Koplovitz, Alan M. Goldberg, Bruce A. Cholost and Andrew J. Wagner, respondents.
Gallett Dreyer & Berkey, LLP, New York (Morrell I. Berkowitz of counsel), for Morrell I. Berkowitz, respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Manzanet–Daniels, Kapnick, Singh, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered on or about March 25, 2019, which, to the extent appealable, granted the motions of defendants Vivienne Gilbert, Esq., Howard J. Lazarus, Esq., Deborah B. Koplovitz, Esq., Morrell I. Berkowitz, Esq., Alan M. Goldberg, Esq., Bruce A. Cholst, Esq., and Andrew J. Wagner, Esq. to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from portion of the order that sua sponte dismissed the complaint as against defendant Thomas M. Curtis, Esq., unanimously dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable. Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for violation of Judiciary Law § 487(1) against defendants Berkowitz, Gilbert, and Lazarus because he does not allege that they acted as counsel of record in any legal proceeding to which he was a party (see Sun Graphics Corp. v. Levy, Davis & Maher, LLP, 94 A.D.3d 669, 669, 943 N.Y.S.2d 464 [1st Dept. 2012] ; Siller v. Third Brevoort Corp., 145 A.D.3d 595, 596, 44 N.Y.S.3d 40 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 905, 2017 WL 5492766 [2017] ). Plaintiff also fails to state a cause of action for violation of § 487(1) against defendants Koplovitz, Goldberg, Cholst, and Wagner because the allegations in the complaint do not give rise to the inference that their actions exceeded the bounds of routine advocacy (see Seldon v. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, 116 A.D.3d 490, 491, 984 N.Y.S.2d 23 [1st Dept. 2014], lv dismissed 25 N.Y.3d 985, 9 N.Y.S.3d 178, 31 N.E.3d 595 [2015] ; see also Bill Birds, Inc. v. Stein Law Firm, P.C., 34 N.Y.3d 1084, 116 N.Y.S.3d 183, 139 N.E.3d 841 [2020] ). Plaintiff's claims that Koplovitz submitted affidavits containing misstatements or perjury are not sufficiently egregious to support a cause of action under § 487 because the statements related to immaterial facts (see Shawe v. Elting, 161 A.D.3d 585, 588, 77 N.Y.S.3d 400 [1st Dept. 2018] ).
The portion of the order dismissing the claims against defendant Curtis, which appear to be meritless and time-barred, was issued sua sponte and therefore is not appealable as of right ( CPLR 5701[a][2] ; see Sholes v. Meagher, 100 N.Y.2d 333, 335, 763 N.Y.S.2d 522, 794 N.E.2d 664 [2003] ; Hladun–Goldmann v. Rentsch Assoc., 8 A.D.3d 73, 74, 779 N.Y.S.2d 183 [1st Dept. 2004] ).
M–1579 – Mazzocchi v. Gilbert, et al.
Motion to strike plaintiff's reply brief, denied.