Patterson v. Leahey & Johnson, P.C., 80 N.Y.2d 167 (1992)
Executive Law § 142-a, which validates the official acts of a notary public whose commission has expired, does not bar a fraud action against a notary-attorney under Judiciary Law § 487 and Executive Law § 135 for knowingly submitting defective documents to a court, but the plaintiff must still adequately plead and prove damages resulting from the misconduct.
Summary
Patterson sued Leahey & Johnson under Judiciary Law § 487, alleging the firm committed fraud by submitting affidavits notarized by Lynch, whose notary commission had expired, in a prior negligence suit. This resulted in the dismissal of Patterson’s negligence claim. The Court of Appeals held that Executive Law § 142-a does not automatically bar such a fraud action, as it primarily validates notarial acts to protect public reliance. However, the Court affirmed the dismissal because Patterson’s complaint failed to sufficiently plead damages. Sanctions against Patterson were reversed, as his claim had a legal basis, even if it ultimately failed on the merits.
Facts
In a prior negligence suit brought by Patterson, the defendant law firm, Leahey & Johnson, submitted affidavits notarized by Lynch. At the time of notarization, Lynch’s notary public commission had expired. Based on these affidavits, the Supreme Court dismissed Patterson’s negligence action on summary judgment. Patterson’s motions to vacate the judgment were denied, based on Executive Law § 142-a.
Procedural History
Patterson then commenced an action against Leahey & Johnson under Judiciary Law § 487, alleging fraud. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and imposed sanctions on Patterson. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal but reduced the amount of sanctions. Patterson appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Executive Law § 142-a bars a fraud action against a notary-attorney under Judiciary Law § 487 and Executive Law § 135 for knowingly submitting defective documents to a court.
2. Whether Patterson adequately pleaded damages in his fraud action.
3. Whether the imposition of sanctions against Patterson was proper.
Holding
1. No, because Executive Law § 142-a primarily validates notarial acts to protect public reliance and does not provide an impenetrable shield against actions predicated on deceitful conduct by an attorney-notary.
2. No, because Patterson’s allegations on the issue of damages were merely conclusory and did not support the conclusion that he would have been successful in the underlying negligence case absent the alleged fraud.
3. No, because Patterson’s claim that Executive Law § 142-a does not bar a suit for a notary-attorney’s misconduct under Judiciary Law § 487 and Executive Law § 135 has a legal basis, even though the claim ultimately fails on the merits.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that Executive Law § 142-a was intended to allow the public to rely on the presumption of validity attached to a notary’s certificate. The statute does not expressly preclude suits for damages predicated on a notary-attorney’s misconduct in knowingly submitting defective documents to a court. The legislative history indicated that section 142-a was not intended to relieve notaries public from criminal liability for official misconduct. However, the Court found that Patterson’s fraud action was properly dismissed because his allegations on the issue of damages were merely conclusory, violating CPLR 3016(b). The pleadings and affidavits did not support the conclusion that Patterson would have been successful in the negligence case absent Lynch’s alleged fraud. The court stated, “[S]ection 142-a validated those defectively notarized documents, and Supreme Court’s reliance upon them in dismissing the earlier action was proper.” Regarding sanctions, the Court held that Patterson’s claim had a legal basis, and bringing the claim was not an abuse of judicial process approaching sanctionable conduct.