Effect of 'Amalfitano v. Rosenberg' on Judiciary Law §487 Claims

Two recent articles by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone—”The Use of Lawyer-Targeted Judiciary Law §487,” March 9, 2009, NYLJ, and “An Explosion of Developments in Judiciary Law §487,” June 8, 2010, NYLJ—highlight the expanding use of that statute as a companion to legal malpractice claims. The instant discussion—grounded primarily in the hallmark state and federal decisions in Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 428 F.Supp.2d 196 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), cert. questions referred, 533 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008), questions answered, 12 N.Y.3d 8 (2009), answers applied and aff’d, 572 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2009)—sheds some additional light on three areas mentioned by Mr. Bluestone.

What Is the Statute of Limitations for §487 Claims? Citing Kuske v. Gellert & Cutler, P.C., 247 A.D.2d 448 (2d Dept. 1998), and Jorgensen v. Silverman, 224 A.D.2d 665 (2d Dept. 1996), Mr. Bluestone observes that the limitations period for a §487 violation is three years.¹ The precise rule in the Second Department has been that “the three-year malpractice” period of CPLR 214(6) governs §487 claims, because the treble damages available under the statute “are not designed to compensate a plaintiff for injury to property or pecuniary interests, and are not customarily recoverable in a breach of contract action.” Jorgensen, id. at 666.