Mercure, J.P.
The underlying facts are more fully set forth in plaintiff's legal malpractice action ( Adamski v Lama, 56 AD3d 1071 [decided herewith]). In this action, plaintiff asserts claims of libel, perjury, fraud in the inducement, tampering with documents, obstruction of justice, and frivolous pleadings against trial counsel for the defendants in Adamski v Lama, Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and plaintiff now appeals.
We affirm. As Supreme Court concluded, defendants' allegedly libelous statements in affidavits and a letter are absolutely privileged inasmuch as they were made in the course of a judicial proceeding and pertinent to that litigation ( see Martirano v Frost, 25 NY2d 505, 507-508; Cavallaro v Pozzi, 28 AD3d 1075, 1077; Black v Green Harbour Homeowners' Assn., Inc., 19 AD3d 962, 963; Grasso v Mathew, 164 AD2d 476, 479, lv dismissed 11 NY2d 940, lv denied 78 NY2d 855). With respect to plaintiff's remaining claims, he has failed to state a cause of action for fraud, and no private right of action exists for perjury, tampering with documents, obstruction of justice, and frivolous pleadings ( see Newin Corp. v Hartford Ace. Indem. Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217; Rose Val. Joint Venture v Apollo Plaza Assoc., 191 AD2d 874, 875; Crandall v Bernard, Overton Russell, 133 AD2d 878, 879-880, lv dismissed and denied 70 NY2d 940; Grafer v Marko Beer Beverages, 36 AD2d 295, 296-297, appeal dismissed 29 NY2d 641).
Plaintiff's remaining arguments are academic, unsupported by the record, or otherwise lacking in merit.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.