MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER The pro se plaintiff sued the defendants?his sister and the law firm that represented their father’s estate — for fraudulently transferring ownership of his parents’ house after his father died. The plaintiff contends instead that the house was still part of a trust that the plaintiff and his sister controlled. Before the Court are the following: (i) defendants Peter Maimone and Albert Maimone & Associates, P.C.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 79); (ii) defendant Doreen Pelczar’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 80); and (iii) the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims (ECF No. 78). As explained below, the motions are granted. On September 24, 1957, Alfred and Josephine Pelczar purchased property located at 7-22 151st Place, Whitestone, NY 11357 (the “Whitestone Property”). On March 19, 1997, the couple formed the Alfred S. Pelczar and Josephine C. Pelczar Irrevocable Trust 1997, designated the plaintiff and Doreen Pelczar as trust beneficiaries, and transferred the Whitestone Property to the trust. (ECF No. 79-9 at 2; ECF No. 79-3.)1 The terms of the trust provided that upon the Pelczars’ deaths, “this Trust shall terminate” and the trust estate “shall be paid and distributed to the beneficiaries…as the Grantors may direct and appoint by their Last Will and Testament.” (ECF No. 79-3, Ex. 2 at 5.) On January 24, 2013, Alfred Pelczar executed his Last Will and Testament, in which he devised and bequeathed “all of the property remaining in the Trust upon his death, including but not limited to the [Whitestone Property],…solely to [his] daughter, [Doreen Pelczar].” (ECF No. 79-6.) Alfred Pelczar died on February 8, 2014.2 On July 21, 2016, Doreen Pelzcar, in her capacity as executor of her father’s estate, signed a deed transferring the Whitestone Property to herself.3 On December 4, 2018, the plaintiff brought this action under Article 15 of the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”).4 (ECF No. 1.) I dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because I found that it fell within the probate exception. (ECF No. 24.) The Second Circuit affirmed my decision in part and vacated in part, Pelczar v. Pelczar, 833 F. App’x 872, 875 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order), finding that this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff’s damages claim (ECF No. 33 at 4). On remand, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging a fraudulent misrepresentation claim (ECF No. 44), which the defendants moved to dismiss (ECF Nos. 47, 51). I denied the motion on February 24, 2022. (ECF No. 63.)5 Doreen Pelczar answered the amended complaint on November 21, 2022. (ECF No. 74.) On December 15, 2022, the Maimone defendants answered and asserted one counterclaim seeking attorneys’ fees. (ECF No. 76.) The plaintiff moved to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims on December 27, 2022, and all defendants filed their respective motions for judgment on the pleadings on February 9 and 10, 2022. The defendants argue that the trust terminated when Alfred Pelczar died, at which point the Whitestone Property vested immediately in the trust’s remainder beneficiary, Doreen Pelczar, through the validly exercised testamentary power of appointment. (ECF No. 86 at 2.) The plaintiff alleges that the Pelczars transferred the Whitestone Property to the trust, and that it remained a trust asset after Alfred Pelczar’s death. To support this claim, he says that (i) the New York City Department of Finance and the City of New York sent him certain tax bills and records that show he was a co-owner of the property after Alfred Pelczar’s death (ECF No. 44 at 18), and (ii) the defendants did not comply with New York state tax laws (id. at
