Opinion
2012-10-3
SPECIALIZED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES CORP., plaintiff, v. Benjamin E. CARTER, defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant; Douglas A. Durnin, et al., third-party defendants-respondents, et al., third-party defendant.
L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Daniel M. Maunz and Marie Ann Hoenings of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant. Catalano Gallardo & Petropoulos, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Matthew K. Flanagan of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent Douglas A. Durnin.
L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Daniel M. Maunz and Marie Ann Hoenings of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant. Catalano Gallardo & Petropoulos, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Matthew K. Flanagan of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent Douglas A. Durnin.
Nicoletti Hornig & Sweeney, New York, N.Y. (Michael F. McGowan of counsel), for third-party defendants-respondents Robert J. LaReddola and LaReddola, Lester & Associates, LLP.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, ARIEL E. BELEN, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of Judiciary Law § 487, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), entered February 23, 2011, as granted that branch of the motion of the third-party defendants Robert J. LaReddola and LaReddola, Lester & Associates, LLP, which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against them, and granted the separate motion of the third-party defendant Douglas A. Durnin pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the third-party defendants-respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that an attorney may not seek contribution under CPLR 1401 for any part of an award made pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487. “The policy of the law, as declared by the Legislature in CPLR 1401, is to allow contribution ‘unless it is clear that the legislative policy which led to the passage of the statute would be frustrated by the granting of contribution in favor of the person who violated the statute’ ” ( Zona v. Oatka Rest. & Lounge, 68 N.Y.2d 824, 825–826, 507 N.Y.S.2d 615, 499 N.E.2d 869, quoting 12th Ann. Rep. of N.Y. Jud. Conf. on CPLR, 1974 McKinney's Session Laws of N.Y., at 1808). Treble damages awarded under Judiciary Law § 487 “ ‘are not designed to compensate a plaintiff for injury to property or pecuniary interests' ” ( McCabe v. St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 79 A.D.3d 1612, 1614, 914 N.Y.S.2d 814, quoting Jorgensen v. Silverman, 224 A.D.2d 665, 666, 638 N.Y.S.2d 482). They are designed to punish attorneys who violate the statute and to deter them from betraying their “special obligation to protect the integrity of the courts and foster their truth-seeking function” ( Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 12 N.Y.3d 8, 14, 874 N.Y.S.2d 868, 903 N.E.2d 265). Allowing an attorney who violates Judiciary Law § 487 to seek contribution for any part of the award would run counter to this intent ( but see Trepel v. Dippold, 2006 WL 3054336, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78050 [S.D.N.Y.2006] ).
The parties' remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination.