Moreover, the fact that Burstein has opted to pursue a different legal strategy in federal court than that indicated in the state court complaint (See Docket Entry Nos. 53, 69, Ex. 2) is not necessarily indicative of deceitful intent. See e.g., Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., No. 96CV5658-CPS, 2009 WL 3587344, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2009) (recognizing that a change in legal strategy is not necessarily indicative of bad faith.) Because Kerik's Section 487 claim against Burstein is premised on nothing more than "mere conclusory statements," Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, with respect to Burstein's attempts to deceive this Court, Kerik has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and Tacopina and Burstein's motion to dismiss his Judiciary Law § 487 claim is granted.

Courts routinely accept expert testimony regarding calculations of prejudgment interest. See, e.g., Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., No. CV-96-5658, 2009 WL 3587344, at *2 & n.3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2009); Mody v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 04-cv-358, 2006 WL 3050834, at *1 (D. Conn. Oct. 25, 2006); cf. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2010 WL 1924708, at *3 (considering, for New York state law claim, expert's damages calculation in present-value, accounting for "interest that would have accrued from 2002 until 2009"). Of course, where damages are ultimately awarded pursuant to New York state law, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules will govern any award of pre-verdict or post-verdict interest.

The expenditures incurred in the within action include costs for legal research, photocopies, overnight mail delivery, court reporters, transcripts, process servers, court imposed filing fees, expert fees and travel-related expenses, all of which are routinely recoverable. See, e.g., Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., No. CV 96-5658, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99407, at *8-10 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2009) (finding expert fees to be recoverable); Simmons v. New York City Transit Auth., No. CV 02-1575, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16949, at *22-23 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2008), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 575 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2009) (finding costs relating to "filing fees, process servers, postage, travel and photocopying" to be recoverable); Cho, 524 F. Supp. 2d at 212 (reimbursing plaintiff for costs related to "Federal Express, reproduction, telephone, facsimile, postage, deposition services, [and] deposition/hearing transcripts" as well as legal research); Reiter v. Metro. Transp. Auth. of N.Y., No. 01 Civ. 2762, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71008, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2007) (stating that a "prevailing party in an action under Title VII may recover, in the court's discretion, . . . expert fees as part of the costs");Int'l Consulting Servs., Ltd. v. Cheap Tickets, Inc., No. 01-CV-4768, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71689, at *26 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2007) (finding costs related to electronic rese