In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York dismissed an appeal in the case of Oberlander v. Simon, docket number 2023-08685. The court's decision, issued on June 3, 2026, upheld a lower court's order that dismissed claims against attorney Bradley D. Simon for alleged violations of Judiciary Law § 487. This ruling affects the plaintiffs, Frederick M. Oberlander and others, who sought damages for what they claimed was deceitful conduct by Simon.
The case centers on a dispute involving Oberlander, who was previously the attorney for Jody Kriss in two federal court actions. In 2015, Simon took over as Kriss's counsel, and the plaintiffs later alleged that Simon engaged in deceitful practices that harmed them. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for proving deceit under Judiciary Law § 487, which holds attorneys accountable for dishonest conduct.
The plaintiffs, led by Oberlander, initiated the lawsuit in June 2022, claiming that Simon's actions caused them financial harm. Specifically, they alleged that Simon, while representing Kriss, made false statements during a court hearing regarding a brief that Kriss supposedly filed. This brief was tied to a contempt hearing concerning sealed documents that were supposed to be destroyed. The plaintiffs argued that Simon's actions constituted deceit under the law, which should entitle them to damages.
The case reached the Appellate Division after Simon filed a motion to dismiss the claims against him, citing procedural grounds. In June 2023, the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted Simon's motion, leading to the current appeal. The plaintiffs contended that Simon's actions were not only unethical but also legally actionable under Judiciary Law § 487, which allows for treble damages in cases of attorney deceit.
In its ruling, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the case against Simon. The court stated, "accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the allegations were insufficient to establish that the alleged acts of deceit were the proximate cause of any injury to the plaintiffs." This statement underscores the court's position that, while the plaintiffs made serious allegations, they failed to demonstrate a direct link between Simon's conduct and any actual harm suffered.
The judges involved in the ruling included Lara J. Genovesi, Lillian Wan, Janice A. Taylor, and Donna-Marie E. Golia. Their decision reflects a careful analysis of the legal standards governing claims under Judiciary Law § 487, emphasizing the necessity for plaintiffs to prove that they suffered injuries directly attributable to the alleged deceitful actions of an attorney.
The impact of this ruling is substantial for future cases involving claims of attorney deceit. It sets a precedent that plaintiffs must not only allege deceit but also clearly show how such conduct directly resulted in harm. This ruling may deter frivolous lawsuits against attorneys, as it reinforces the need for concrete evidence linking alleged misconduct to actual damages.
Going forward, this decision may influence how attorneys approach their conduct in legal proceedings, knowing that claims of deceit must be substantiated with clear evidence of harm. Additionally, it may affect how plaintiffs frame their complaints in similar cases, as they will need to ensure that their allegations meet the court's standards for establishing a cause of action under Judiciary Law § 487.
As for what’s next, the plaintiffs have the option to appeal the decision to a higher court, but details on any such plans were not available in the court filing. There are currently no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.