OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Ames Ray (“Ray”) brings this suit against his former attorney, John G. Balestriere (“Balestriere”), the law firm Balestriere Fariello LLP (“Balestriere Fariello”), and five unnamed attorneys at Balestriere Fariello, alleging causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of New York Judiciary Law §487, and conversion. In broad summary, Ray alleges that Defendants, who represented him in filing a fraudulent conveyance action in New York state court, failed to advise him of a conflict of interest that existed when the state court announced that it would hold a hearing to impose sanctions on both Ray and Defendants, and then pursued their own interests despite purporting to represent him. Defendants Balestriere and Balestriere Fariello have moved to dismiss the operative complaint. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Opinion, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. BACKGROUND1 A. Factual Background In 1998, Ray commenced an action against his ex-wife Christina Ray (“Ms. Ray”) in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, for breaching a series of promissory notes and contracts. (Compl. 17; see also Ray v. Ray, Index No. 604381/1998 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty., Hon. C.E. Ramos) (the “1998 Action”)). The 1998 Action spawned several further lawsuits, including three fraudulent conveyance actions, one of which gave rise to the instant litigation. In 2010, while the 1988 Action was ongoing, Ray, represented by Defendants, filed his first fraudulent conveyance lawsuit against Ms. Ray (the “First Fraudulent Conveyance Action”); in it, he alleged that Ms. Ray had encumbered her Manhattan co-op with a mortgage of nearly $500,000, in violation of New York Debtor and Creditor Law (“NYDCL”) §§273-a and 276. (Compl. 18). On July 14, 2011, Justice Ramos dismissed the First Fraudulent Conveyance Action at the pleading stage. (Id. at 19). The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed that order on July 13, 2013. See Ray v. Ray, 970 N.Y.S.2d 9 (1st Dep’t 2013). In affirming the dismissal, the First Department held that (i) the NYDCL §273-a claim failed because there was no judgment or stay against Ms. Ray when she refinanced her mortgage and transferred the proceeds to her former counsel, and (ii) the NYDCL §276 claim failed because it was not pleaded with sufficient particularity. Id. at 12. Following the dismissal of the First Fraudulent Conveyance Action in July 2013, Ray conferred with Defendants about the prospect of bringing another fraudulent conveyance lawsuit against Ms. Ray and Guarnerius Management, LLC (“Guarnerius”), a related corporate entity. (Compl. 20). Ray was prompted to consider bringing a second action after he learned that Ms. Ray had transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars from her mortgage proceeds to Guarnerius. (Id.). In deciding whether to bring the second fraudulent conveyance lawsuit, Ray and Defendants believed that, if Ray were to file again in New York County, Justice Ramos would dismiss the action and impose sanctions on both Ray and Defendants. (Id. at 21). In that regard, Balestriere wrote to Ray on October 8, 2013: Following up further here, I simply want to state what you already know: [Ms. Ray] will file a motion for sanctions (either of her own volition, or upon invitation by Judge Ramos). We must be ready to address both a motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions, and be ready to appeal an order both granting the motion to dismiss and for sanctions. You know this, but I just want to be perfectly clear: our view is that the claim is of merit, but, as you know, very, very tough. I expect Judge Ramos to issue a sanctions award against you and our firm, so we must be ready for that. (Id. at 21 (emphasis added)). At no time in considering whether to file a second fraudulent conveyance action against Ms. Ray and Guarnerius did Defendants apprise Ray of a potential conflict of interest that could exist if Justice Ramos were to determine to apportion sanctions between them. (Id. at 22). On April 23, 2014, Ray, again represented by Defendants, filed suit against Ms. Ray and Guarnerius for fraudulent conveyances she made upon encumbering her Manhattan co-op (the “Second Fraudulent Conveyance Action”), asserting three causes of action under NYDCL §§273, 276, and 276-a. (Compl. 23). On November 12, 2014, Justice Ramos held a hearing at which he announced his intention to dismiss Ray’s first and second causes of action under NYDCL §273 and §276, based on res judicata and collateral estoppel, and to dismiss all three causes of action for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 24). Justice Ramos also announced his intention to impose sanctions on Ray and Defendants. (Id. at
24-26). Two days after the hearing, Balestriere advised Ray: As discussed, we are prepared to handle whatever we must going forward. Without sounding presumptuous at all, and acknowledging that any further steps in the litigation shall take time and money and potentially cause stress, I am extremely confident that Judge Ramos was dead wrong in granting the sanctions motions and nearly as wrong when he granted the motion to dismiss. (Compl. 26). Defendants again failed to notify Ray of any conflict of interest. (Id.). However, Balestriere did raise the prospect of his firm, Balestriere Fariello, retaining their own counsel to represent them at the sanctions hearing: As also discussed, our firm shall very likely need to hire an attorney to represent our firm in any sanctions proceedings or litigation. I am not sure exactly how that should work, and we will discuss before we formally engage anyone. However, I expect that such counsel would formally represent the firm and make arguments on behalf of the firm while we work very closely with such lawyer both to fend off any sanctions against you and to assist the lawyer as he needs (since my view is that your interests and that of the firm are completely aligned). (Id. at 27 (emphasis added)). Defendants did not advise Ray to retain additional counsel for the handling of the sanctions issue. (Id. at 28). On September 15, 2015, Justice Ramos issued an order memorializing his dismissal of the Second Fraudulent Conveyance Action and stating that the court would schedule a hearing to determine: (i) whether sanctions would be paid; (ii) to what extent sanctions would be paid; and (iii) by whom sanctions would be paid. Ray v. Ray, Index No. 153945/2014, Dkt. #48 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Sept. 17, 2015). Around the time that Ray decided to file the Second Fraudulent Conveyance Action, he also contemplated filing a lawsuit, pursuant to New York Judiciary Law (“JL”) §487, against Ms. Ray’s counsel for purportedly deceitful and defamatory comments counsel made about Ray while representing Ms. Ray in the 1998 Action. (Compl. 29). The lawyers against whom Ray contemplated bringing the JL §487 action were the same lawyers representing Ms. Ray in the Second Fraudulent Conveyance Action, and therefore, the same lawyers pursuing the sanctions against Ray and Defendants. (See id.). The statute of limitations on a JL §487 claim would run out at the end of 2015, meaning that Ray would have to file such lawsuit before the sanctions hearing, which was scheduled for December 8, 2015. (Id.).2 Defendants had known of Ray’s intentions to file the JL §487 action since May 2014, and briefly considered representing him in that lawsuit. (Id. at 30). However, as the sanctions hearing grew near, Defendants began settlement negotiations with Ms. Ray’s counsel over the amount of sanctions they and Plaintiff would pay to Ms. Ray. (Id. at
