The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Plaintiff, Barbara Silverstein (plaintiff), commenced this action pursuant to New York Judiciary Law §487 and for libel against defendants Robin Gregory, Esq. (Gregory) and Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP (Wilson Elser) (collectively, defendants) stemming from their representation of the defendant in the disposed underlying action in New York County entitled Silverstein v. Farr Nezhat, et al., Index no. 109486/2006 (the underlying action). Defendants now move pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (7) to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion and cross-moves for leave to amend her amended verified complaint, and pursuant to CPLR 602 to consolidate the instant action with the underlying action. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, and the cross-motion is denied. Plaintiff alleges that while Gregory and Wilson Elser represented Mt. Sinai Medical Center (Mt. Sinai) and Farr Nezhat, M.D. (Nezhat) in the underlying action, they engaged in a deceit upon the court and published false information about plaintiff on the Wilson Elser website. In the underlying action, plaintiff brought allegations of medical malpractice, including lack of informed consent and battery stemming from two office consults by plaintiff with Nezhat in June 2005 and the July 13, 2005 surgery upon plaintiff at Mt. Sinai. Plaintiff was a patient at Mt. Sinai from July 13 to July 15, 2005. The underlying action ended in a jury verdict for the defendants. Subsequently, plaintiff moved to vacate the verdict, arguing that defense trial counsel knowingly deceived the court in violation of Judiciary Law §487 during discovery and pretrial proceedings as well as during the trial of this case. This motion has not yet been decided. Plaintiff appealed the jury verdict but did not perfect the appeal. She then brought an action against her trial lawyer and that case was dismissed. FACTCUAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff alleges that on June 23, 2005, plaintiff consulted with Nezhat prior to surgery. Plaintiff alleges that prior to that meeting, Nezhat reviewed the video tape of Harry Reich, M.D. (Reich), performing “laproscopic removal of Plaintiff’s endometriosis (endo)” (NYSCEF doc. no. 6, amended complaint, 24). According to plaintiff, during that consult, Nezhat “failed to advise Plaintiff and her husband that Reich had removed Plaintiffs uterosacral ligaments during his laproscopic surgery as they were covered with endo” (id., 25). Plaintiff further alleges that Nezhat failed to advise plaintiff that “she should go for pelvic floor dysfunction physical therapy rather than have surgery inasmuch as Reich had removed Plaintiff’s uterosacral pelvic support ligaments” (id, 26). According to plaintiff, prior to June 23, 2005, Nezhat phoned plaintiff and told her “she needed a hysterectomy as she had endo in her uterine lining” (id., 27), and on June 23, 2005, “Nezhat agreed with Plaintiff and her husband he would perform a supracervical laparoscopic surgery upon Plaintiff’ (id., 28). It is plaintiff’s allegation that Nezhat “failed to tell Plaintiff that she was high risk for any hysterectomy because Reich had removed her uterosacral ligaments…Nezhat failed to tell Plaintiff and her husband on June 23, 2005 that he might have to convert to a complete hysterectomy during her surgery” (id., 30). On July 12, 2006, Nezhat performed a complete hysterectomy, instead of a supracervical hysterectomy, on plaintiff without her consent (id.,
31 and 32). Nezhat created an enterocele inside plaintiff’s pelvis by removing the adhesions between plaintiff’s uterus and rectum, but allegedly Nezhat failed to tell plaintiff after her surgery that he created an enterocele during his surgery of July 13, 2005. Nezhat further failed to tell plaintiff that he had repaired the enterocele at the end of the hysterectomy. Finally, Nezhat failed to tell plaintiff that he had created a vaginal cuff after he removed her cervix, and failed to place plaintiff on laxatives while she was healing from her complete hysterectomy. Additionally, Nezhat did not tell plaintiff and her husband that he might have trouble performing a supracervical hysterectomy since plaintiff’s landmarks that would ordinarily show him where to cut to keep plaintiff’s cervix, her uterosacral ligaments, had been removed by Reich. With respect to the allegations against Gregory, plaintiff alleges that “[i]n order to protect Mt. Sinai from liability for its wrongful hiring of Nezhat, Gregory created a scheme of deceit and collusion with Nezhat prior to his depositions in Silverstein case” (id., 63). Specifically, plaintiff alleges that Gregory spoke to Nezhat in preparation for his depositions in the underlying Action. Plaintiff believes that “Gregory reviewed Nezhat’s office records [and Mt. Sinai's hospital records] concerning the Plaintiff [with Nezhat] prior to Nezhat’s depositions in the Silverstein case” (id., 43). Plaintiff alleges that Nezhat prepared two separate operative reports regarding his July 13, 2005 surgery upon plaintiff, and that one of Nezhat’s operative reports states that “Nezhat cut Plaintiff’s aterosacral ligaments in order to remove Plaintiffs uterus and cervix on July 13, 2005″. Nezhat’s second operative report states that Nezhat “cut plaintiff’s cardinal ligaments in order to remove plaintiff’s uterus and cervix on July 13, 2005″ (id.,
