It made the civil cause of action in fraud upon the court inapplicable to:
1) individuals who were not parties in litigation out of which the fraud upon the court claim arose;
2) inapplicable to settlements; and
3) inapplicable to conduct that occurred after the final judgment in the case
I will illustrate my points.
This is a direct quotation from the case CDR Creances S.A.S v Cohen, 2014 NY Slip Op 03294 Decided on May 8, 2014:
The new standard allows only a non-offending "party" to bring a claim of fraud upon the court. The Mokay children were not parties in the divorce action of their parents.
The new standard requires a finding by clear and convincing evidence - that was not done for Mr. Neroni.
The new standard requires a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the offending party "has acted knowingly in an attempt TO HINDER THE FACT FINDER'S FAIR ADJUDICATION of the case AND his adversary's defense of the action".
One cannot hinder adjudication by engaging in conduct after the adjudication is concluded, thus, the new standard excludes conduct committed after the final judgment in the case out of which the claim of fraud upon the court arises.
On cannot hinder fair adjudication of the case AND, at the same time, his adversary's defense of the action where the case was settled, thus a claim of fraud upon the court excludes settlements, according to the new standard.
Since Mr. Neroni's case was very much pending, and the trial was set on May 13, 2014, 5 days after the decision, but was adjourned on Plaintiffs' request.
Plaintiffs never disclosed the new law to the court, as they were required by law, and continued with litigation that has become frivolous as of May 8, 2014.
Yet, the law came in effect before the case was finished and is fully applicable to it.
So, now we have an "interim" judgment for over $300,000 awarded to people who had no right to assert the claims, by a judge who prefers to engage in unauthorized practice of medicine and re-diagnose back injuries of female immigrant attorneys who sue him (that is me) rather than to do his job.
I am filing a complaint against Dowd and against the trio of attorneys (Richard Harlem, Eric Jervis, James Hartmann) who perpetrated this fraud.
As I said before in the Neroni v Harlem case, fraud asserted by Richard Harlem as an attorney is not an accident or mistake, Richard Harlem learnt at the knee of a master, see my blog about the Blanding saga.
As to responses of authorities to these complaints, stay tuned.