### 1 15-0603 Gilman v. Marsh & McLennan Cos.



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1 

### FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 2 3 

# SUMMARY ORDER 4

5
**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER** 6

**FILED ON OR AFTER J**  **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  7
**A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  = **S L**  **OCAL R**  **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY**  8

**ORDER IN**  **A DOCUMENT**  **FILED WITH**  **THIS COURT**  **, A**  **PARTY MUST**  **CITE EITHER**  **THE F**  **EDERAL A**  **PPENDIX** 9

**OR AN**  **ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH**  **THE NOTATION**  A **SUMMARY ORDER**  @ **). A**  **PARTY CITING**  **A SUMMARY**  10

**ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL .**  11 12 

### At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 13 

### the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 14 

### Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 15 

### 16 **th** 

### day of June, two thousand sixteen. 16
17 

### PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, 18 

### RALPH K. WINTER, 19 

### DENNIS JACOBS, 20 

### Circuit Judges. 21
22


### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 23
24 

### WILLIAM W. GILMAN, EDWARD J. McNENNEY, JR., 25 

### Plaintiffs-Appellants, 26
27 

### -v.- 15-0603 28 29 

### MARSH & McLENNAN COMPANIES, INC., MARSH 30 

### INC., MARSH USA INC., MARSH GLOBAL 31 

### BROKING INC., MICHAEL CHERKASKY, 32 

### Defendants-Appellees. 33 34


### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 35 36 

### FOR APPELLANTS: DAVID I. GREENBERGER (Jeffrey L. 37 

### Liddle, Blaine H. Bortnick, James 38

### 2 W. Halter, on the brief), Liddle & 1 

### Robinson, LLP, New York, NY. 2 3 

### FOR MARSH APPELLEES: JONATHAN D. POLKES (Gregory 4 

### Silbert, Nicholas J. Pappas, on 5 

### the brief), Weil, Gotshal & Manges 6 

### LLP, New York, NY. 7 8 

### FOR CHERKASKY APPELLEE: JAMES O. HEYWORTH (Andrew W. 9 

### Stern, on the brief), Sidley 10 

### Austin LLP, New York, NY. 11
12 

### Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court 13 

### for the Southern District of New York (Oetken, J.). 14 15 

### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND 16 

### DECREED that the judgment of the district court be **AFFIRMED**

. 17
18 

### William Gilman and Edward McNenney, Jr. appeal from the 19 

### order of the United States District Court for the Southern 20 

### District of New York (Oetken, J.) dismissing their claims for 21 

### (i) abuse of process against their former employer, Marsh (i.e., 22 

### Marsh & McLennan Cos., Marsh Inc., Marsh USA Inc., and Marsh 23 

### Global Broking Inc.), and the CEO of their former employer, 24 

### Michael Cherkasky, and (ii) misconduct against Cherkasky as an 25 

### attorney. As explained in an opinion filed simultaneously with 26 

### this summary order, we affirm the district court’s dismissal 27 

### of Gilman and McNenney’s claims for employment benefits against 28 

### their former employer. We assume the parties’ familiarity with 29 

### the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 30 

### presented for review. 31



### We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, accept 32 

### as true all factual allegations, and draw all reasonable 33 

### inferences in favor of the plaintiffs. Fink v. Time Warner 34 

### Cable, 714 F.3d 739, 740-41 (2d Cir. 2013). 35



### 1. Gilman and McNenney cannot make out a claim for abuse 36 

### of process against Marsh and Cherkasky. As we recognized in 37 

### Cook v. Sheldon, “[t]he gist of abuse of process is the improper 38 

### use of process after it is regularly issued.” 41 F.3d 73, 80 39 

### (2d Cir. 1994) (emphasis added) (internal marks omitted). To 40

### 3 the extent Gilman and McNenney allege any “abuse,” it 1 

### unquestionably came before the process in question (their 2 

### respective indictments), not after. Accordingly, we affirm 3 

### the district court’s dismissal of their abuse of process claim. 4



### 2. Gilman and McNenney’s claim of misconduct by an 5 

### attorney under New York Judiciary Law Section 487 also fails. 6 

### Such a claim must allege that the attorney committed the 7 

### misconduct while acting in the capacity as an attorney . See, 8 

### e.g., Barrows v. Alexander, 912 N.Y.S.2d 831, 832 (App. Div. 9 

### 2010). To the extent Gilman and McNenney allege any misconduct 10 

### by Cherkasky, it was without a doubt in his role as the CEO of 11 

### Marsh, not as an attorney. Therefore, we affirm the district 12 

### court’s dismissal of their misconduct by an attorney claim. 13



### Accordingly, and finding no merit in Gilman’s or McNenney’s 14 

### other arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of the district 15


### court. 16



### FOR THE COURT: 17 

### CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 18