Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move to dismiss a cause of action based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel. Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding. The doctrine of collateral estoppel, a narrower species of res judicata, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same.
Here, the issues raised in the instant action as to the defendants' alleged violation of Judiciary Law § 487 could not have been raised in a prior action between the parties and were not necessarily decided in the prior action. Thus, neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel bars the plaintiffs from litigating the instant Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action.
A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law. Under Judiciary Law § 487(1), an attorney who is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be liable to the injured party for treble damages in a civil action. Here, the defendants' evidentiary submissions failed to utterly refute the plaintiffs' factual allegations that the defendants violated Judiciary Law § 487.
Altman v. Orseck, NY Slip Op 00940 (2d Dep't February 19, 2025)
