Colon v. Miltenberg et al, No. 1:2016cv06938 - Document 10 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court's October 13, 2016 order. The Second Circuit has held that New York Judiciary Law § 487 does not [] apply to acts by attorneys outside New Yorks territorial borders. Schertenleib v. Traum, 589 F.2d 1156, 1166 (2d Cir. 1978); see also Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 533 F.3d 117, 123 ("Section 487 thus permits a civil action to be maintained by any party who is injured by an attorney's intentional deceit or collusion in New Y ork on a court or on any party to litigation....") (emphasis added). As noted in the Court's previous order, the alleged actions by defendants, as plead in the complaint, occurred outside of New York before a New Jersey court. (See ECF Nos. 1, 9.) Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/07/2016) (ama)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Colon v. Miltenberg et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------ X : MICHELE COLÓN, : : Plaintiff, : : -v: : ANDREW T. MILTENBERG; MARCO A. : SANTORI; AND NESENOFF MILTENBERG : GODDARD LASKOWITZ, LLP, : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------------------ X Doc. 10 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ DATE FILED: December 7, 2016 16-cv-6938 (KBF) OPINION & ORDER KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge: Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 2, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) The two claims in plaintiff’s complaint were brought pursuant to New York Judiciary Law § 487. On October 13, 2016, the Court ordered plaintiff “to show cause why this action should not be dismissed sua sponte for failure to state a cognizable claim under New York Judiciary Law § 487 based on the facts contained in the complaint. The Court note[d] that the alleged actions by defendants, as plead in the complaint, occurred outside of New York before a New Jersey court.” (ECF No. 9.) The Court ordered plaintiff to respond not later than November 2, 2016. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s October 13, 2016 order. The Second Circuit has held that New York Judiciary Law § 487 does “not [] apply to acts by attorneys outside New York’s territorial borders.” Schertenleib v. Traum, 589 F.2d 1156, 1166 (2d Cir. 1978); see also Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 533 F.3d 117, 123 Dockets.Justia.com (“Section 487 thus permits a civil action to be maintained by any party who is injured by an attorney’s intentional deceit or collusion in New York on a court or on any party to litigation . . . .”) (emphasis added). As noted in the Court’s previous order, the alleged actions by defendants, as plead in the complaint, occurred outside of New York before a New Jersey court. (See ECF Nos. 1, 9.) Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York December 7, 2016 ____________________________________ KATHERINE B. FORREST United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
