Aaron v. Deloitte Tax LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aaron v. Deloitte Tax LLP

2017 NY Slip Op 3051, 149 A.D.3d 580, 50 N.Y.S.3d 279

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 20, 2017

Docket653203/15 -743

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3051 (Aaron v. Deloitte Tax LLP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aaron v. Deloitte Tax LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 3051, 149 A.D.3d 580, 50 N.Y.S.3d 279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered August 22, 2016, deemed an appeal from *581 judgment (CPLR 5520 [c]), same court and Justice, entered September 26, 2016, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissing plaintiffs’ malpractice claim, and so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The engagement letter, which stated that it covered a period of seven months, provided that any action brought relating to the engagement must be commenced within one year of the accrual of the cause of action. The accrual of plaintiffs’ accounting malpractice claim was on January 21, 2009, the date decedent signed the last document that was part of the estate tax plan formulated by defendant (see Ackerman v Price Waterhouse, 84 NY2d 535, 541 [1994]; Williamson v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 9 NY3d 1, 7-8 [2007]). This action was not commenced until September 2015, and is untimely.

Plaintiffs may not avail themselves of the continuous representation tolling doctrine because the limitations period was contractual, not statutory, and was reasonable. The engagement letter indicated that decedent, a sophisticated and experienced businessman, and defendant, did not necessarily expect the representation to continue after the plan was in place, since the engagement expressly ended approximately seven months after the agreement was signed (see Executive Plaza, LLC v Peerless Ins. Co., 22 NY3d 511, 518 [2014]).

Equitable estoppel is equally inapplicable because the engagement letter made clear that any estate tax plan defendant formulated was subject to challenge by taxing authorities. Moreover, the complaint alleged that in April 2009, within the limitations period, defendant advised plaintiffs that the estate plan would likely be closely scrutinized by the IRS (see Putter v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 7 NY3d 548, 553 [2006]).

Concur— Acosta, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

Motion to take judicial notice denied. [Prior Case History: 2016 NY Slip Op 31604OJ).]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered August 22, 2016, deemed an appeal from *581 judgment (CPLR 5520 [c]), same court and Justice, entered September 26, 2016, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissing plaintiffs’ malpractice claim, and so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The engagement letter, which stated that it covered a period of seven months, provided that any action brought relating to the engagement must be commenced within one year of the accrual of the cause of action. The accrual of plaintiffs’ accounting malpractice claim was on January 21, 2009, the date decedent signed the last document that was part of the estate tax plan formulated by defendant (see Ackerman v Price Waterhouse, 84 NY2d 535, 541 [1994]; Williamson v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 9 NY3d 1, 7-8 [2007]). This action was not commenced until September 2015, and is untimely.

Plaintiffs may not avail themselves of the continuous representation tolling doctrine because the limitations period was contractual, not statutory, and was reasonable. The engagement letter indicated that decedent, a sophisticated and experienced businessman, and defendant, did not necessarily expect the representation to continue after the plan was in place, since the engagement expressly ended approximately seven months after the agreement was signed (see Executive Plaza, LLC v Peerless Ins. Co., 22 NY3d 511, 518 [2014]).

Equitable estoppel is equally inapplicable because the engagement letter made clear that any estate tax plan defendant formulated was subject to challenge by taxing authorities. Moreover, the complaint alleged that in April 2009, within the limitations period, defendant advised plaintiffs that the estate plan would likely be closely scrutinized by the IRS (see Putter v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 7 NY3d 548, 553 [2006]).

Concur— Acosta, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

Motion to take judicial notice denied. [Prior Case History: 2016 NY Slip Op 31604OJ).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3051, 149 A.D.3d 580, 50 N.Y.S.3d 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aaron-v-deloitte-tax-llp-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack