Opinion
May 6, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
Plaintiff's remedy, if any, for the alleged fraud by defendant law firms and attorneys in obtaining an adjournment of the trial of plaintiff's prior action against defendants' clients "lies exclusively in that lawsuit itself * * * not a second plenary action" ( Yalkowsky v. Century Apts. Assocs., 215 A.D.2d 214, 215). The principle that a separate action based on a claim of fraud allegedly perpetrated in litigation will lie "where the perjury is merely a means to the accomplishment of a larger fraudulent scheme" ( Newin Corp. v. Hartford Acc. Indem. Co., 37 N.Y.2d 211, 217) has no application in this case ( cf., Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. Handel, 190 A.D.2d 57). In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider other points concerning the sufficiency of the complaint. The award of sanctions against plaintiff was eminently justified, and no formal hearing thereon was required, since adequate notice of the application therefor was given in defendants' moving papers, plaintiff had ample opportunity to address the issue in his opposition papers and at oral argument, and it was clear from the papers before the motion court that plaintiff commenced this action solely for purposes of harassment ( see, Matter of Minister of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church v. 198 Broadway, 76 N.Y.2d 411, 413, n).
Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.