N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Judiciary / ARTICLE Attorneys and Counsellors
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Judiciary Law § 488 (2026)

Buying demands on which to bring an action

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 488. Buying demands on which to bring an action. An attorney or
counselor shall not:
  1. Directly or indirectly, buy, take an assignment of or be in any
manner interested in buying or taking an assignment of a bond,
promissory note, bill of exchange, book debt, or other thing in action,
with the intent and for the purpose of bringing an action thereon.
  2. By himself or herself, or by or in the name of another person,
either before or after action brought, promise or give, or procure to be
promised or given, a valuable consideration to any person, as an
inducement to placing, or in consideration of having placed, in his or
her hands, or in the hands of another person, a demand of any kind, for
the purpose of bringing an action thereon, or of representing the
claimant in the pursuit of any civil remedy for the recovery thereof.
But this subdivision does not apply to:
  a. an agreement between attorneys and counselors, or either, to divide
between themselves the compensation to be received;
  b. a lawyer representing an indigent or pro bono client paying court
costs and expenses of litigation on behalf of the client;
  c. a lawyer advancing court costs and expenses of litigation, the
repayment of which may be contingent on the outcome of the matter; or
  d. a lawyer, in an action in which an attorney's fee is payable in
whole or in part as a percentage of the recovery in the action, paying
on the lawyer's own account court costs and expenses of litigation. In
such case, the fee paid to the attorney from the proceeds of the action
may include an amount equal to such costs and expenses incurred.
  3. A lawyer that offers services as described in paragraphs b, c and d
of subdivision two of this section shall not, either directly or through
any media used to advertise or otherwise publicize the lawyer's
services, promise or advertise his or her ability to advance or pay
costs and expenses of litigation in such manner as to state or imply
that such ability is unique or extraordinary when such is not the case.
  4. An attorney or counselor who violates the provisions of this
section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Justinian Capital SPC ex rel. Blue Heron Segregated Portfolio v. WestLB AG, 65 N.E.3d 1253 (N.Y. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Justinian Capital SPC ex rel. Blue Heron Segregated Portfolio v. WestLB AG, 65 N.E.3d 1253 (N.Y. 2016). · cites it 2× “, 13 NY3d at 200 ; Bluebird Partners, 94 NY2d at 1 Judiciary Law § 488 is similar, but applies only to attorneys.”
Merrill Lynch Mortg. Investors, Inc. v. Love Funding Corp., 918 N.E.2d 889 (N.Y. 2009). · cites it 2× “Judiciary Law § 488 (1) applies a similar proscription to attorneys and counselors.”
In re Fagan, 58 A.D.3d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008). “) Finally, Judge Kram stated that respondent engaged in champerty in violation of Judiciary Law § 488 and Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-103 (22 NYCRR 1200.”
Justinian Capital SPC v. WestLB AG, 37 Misc. 3d 518 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “) New York has adopted this prohibition in Judiciary Law §§ 488, 2 489. Judiciary Law § 489 (1) states that “[n]o person or co-partnership, engaged directly or indirectly in the business of collection and adjustment of claims, and no corporation or association, directly or…”
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. APP Int'l Fin. Co., 33 A.D.3d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2006). “Bank claimed that Fintech was working at the behest of or in concert with the APP defendants and/or receiving consideration from these defendants or their representatives to bring this action in violation of Judiciary Law § 488. *431 In response to litigation instigated by the…”
Waltuch v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 833 F. Supp. 302 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). · cites it 2× “Conti also argues that Waltuch is barred from recovery because his fee agreement is not a “reasonable contingent fee” agreement, and therefore violates Disciplinary Rule 5-103(A), and because it “amounts to an assignment of his right of action against Conti” in violation of New…”
Ltown Ltd. P'ship v. Sire Plan, Inc., 108 A.D.2d 435 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1985). “Because the motives of appellant and his counsel appear, at the very least, to be suspect (see, Judiciary Law § 488 [2]), we have decided to raise on our own motion the issue of whether they can be penalized for pursuing such frivolous litigation (see, Vestal, Sua Sponte…”
1015 Gerard Realty Corp. v. A & S Improvements Corp., 91 A.D.2d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1983). “Thus, the first affirmative defense alleges that the mortgage was acquired by plaintiff “under champertous circumstances and in violation of the Judiciary Law §§ 488, 489, and that by reason thereof, the plaintiff is barred from prosecuting the within action”.”
Taylor-Burns v. AR Resources, Inc., 268 F. Supp. 3d 592 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “N.Y. Judiciary Law § 488 (1) (McKinney). The facts set forth above establish that CS360 identifies potential individuals to act as plaintiffs in consumer protection lawsuits filed by RC Law Group.”
SB Schwartz & Co. v. Levine, 82 A.D.3d 742 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011). “After discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint under the doctrine of *743 champerty (see Judiciary Law §§ 488, 489), as well as to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).”
In re Arensberg, 159 A.D.2d 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1990). · cites it 3× “Petitioner commenced this proceeding charging respondents with advancing financial assistance to clients in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-103 (B) and Judiciary Law § 488 (2). The petition contains one charge of misconduct which alleged that in…”
Kronman v. Palm Mgmt. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 276 A.D.2d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2000). “Palm Management’s affirmative defenses, including that plaintiffs actions constituted champertous conduct pursuant to Judiciary Law § 488 and that plaintiff, by purchasing an interest in the promissory note, breached his fiduciary duty to Palm Management, presented no impediment…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.