Merolla & Gold, LLP, Garden City (Angelo Todd Merolla of
counsel), for appellant.
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, P.C., New York (Ronald C.
Minkoff of counsel), for respondents.
J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Kahn, JJ.
Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.),
entered November 20, 2015, which granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed,
doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes plaintiff from
asserting his Judiciary Law § 487 claim (see Bernard
v Proskauer Rose, LLP, 87 A.D.3d 412, 415 [1st Dept
2011]). The claim is premised on alleged discovery abuses
during a prior arbitration between plaintiff and his
employers, who were represented by defendants. Plaintiff had
a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues he raises
in this action in two motions for sanctions before the
arbitration panel, both of which were denied (see
Pentalpha Enters., Ltd. v Cooper & Dunham LLP, 91
A.D.3d 451 [1st Dept 2012]; Gillen v McCarron, 126
A.D.3d 670 [2d Dept 2015]; God's Battalion of Prayer
Pentecostal Church, Inc. v Hollander, 24 Misc.3d 1250');">24 Misc.3d 1250
[A], 2009 Slip Op 51939[U], *7-9 [Sup Ct, Nassau County
2009], affd 82 A.D.3d 1156');">82 A.D.3d 1156 [2d Dept 2011], lv
denied 17 N.Y.3d 714');">17 N.Y.3d 714 ). Contrary to
plaintiff's contention, the arbitration award constitutes
a valid final judgment for collateral estoppel purposes,
notwithstanding the pendency of plaintiff's petition to
vacate (Acevedo v Holton, 239 A.D.2d 194');">239 A.D.2d 194 [1st Dept
1997]; Franklin Dev. Co., Inc. v Atlantic Mut. Ins.
Co., 60 A.D.3d 897');">60 A.D.3d 897 [2d Dept 2009]).
also failed to state a cause of action under Judiciary Law
§ 478, because the statute does not apply to attorney
misconduct during an arbitral proceeding. The plain text of
§ 478 limits the statute's application to conduct
deceiving "the court or any party"
(emphasis added), and, because the statute has a criminal
component, it must be interpreted narrowly (see People v
Thompson, 26 N.Y.3d 678, 687-688 ; Amalfitano
v Rosenberg, 12 N.Y.3d 8, 14 ). Moreover, courts
have held that the statute does not apply to conduct outside
New York's territorial borders or to administrative
proceedings, observing that its purpose is to regulate the
manner in which litigation is conducted before the courts of
this State (see Schertenleib v Traum, 589 F.2d 1156,
1166 [2d Cir 1978] [proceedings outside New York];
Alliance Network, LLC v Sidley Austin LLP, 43
Misc.3d 848, 864-865 [Sup Ct, NY County 2014] [same];
Southern Blvd. Sound v Felix Storch, Inc., 165
Misc.2d 341, 344 [Civ Ct, NY County 1995], mod on other
grounds 167 Misc.2d 731');">167 Misc.2d 731 [App Term 1996] [same];
Kallista, S.A. v White & Williams LLP, 51
Misc.3d 401, 419 [Sup Ct, Westchester County 2016]
event, plaintiff failed to allege the elements of a cause of
action under the statute, i.e., intentional deceit and
damages proximately caused by the deceit (see
Judiciary Law § 487; Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP
[US], 134 A.D.3d 610, 615 [1st Dept 2015], lv
denied28 N.Y.3d 903');">28 N.Y.3d 903 ). The misconduct that
plaintiff alleges is not "egregious" or "a
chronic and extreme pattern of behavior"
(Facebook, 134 A.D.3d at 615 [internal quotation
marks omitted]), and the allegations regarding scienter lack
the requisite particularity (id.; see also
CPLR 3016[b]). Moreover, plaintiff was given the opportunity