American Exchange Pacific Bank v. Touche

New York Supreme Court

American Exchange Pacific Bank v. Touche

131 Misc. 236, 227 N.Y.S. 218, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1296

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJune 22, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 131 Misc. 236 (American Exchange Pacific Bank v. Touche) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Exchange Pacific Bank v. Touche, 131 Misc. 236, 227 N.Y.S. 218, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1296 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Peters, J.

These are actions to recover damages for injury to property. Section 48 of the Civil Practice Act prescribes that such an action must be commenced within six years after the cause of action has accrued, except in a case where a different period is expressly prescribed. The causes of action are based upon an alleged incorrect audit by the defendants, a firm of accountants, of the accounts and records of a third party, the preparation therefrom of a balance sheet purporting to show the financial condition of the business of such party, and the certification of the correctness of the same over defendants’ signature. Each of defendants’ answers pleads an affirmative defense setting up the two-year Statute of Limitations under the provisions of section 50 of the Civil Practice Act, upon the theory that each of the actions is for damages caused by alleged malpractice of the defendants. The two-year Statute of Limitations has only been applied in those cases of malpractice which involved injury to the person. The court has refused to apply this statute in a malpractice action involving injury to property. (Camp v. Reeves, 209 App. Div. 488, 494; affd., 240 N. Y. 672.) The motion to strike out the affirmative defense in each answer is, therefore, granted. Orders signed.

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

Peters, J.

These are actions to recover damages for injury to property. Section 48 of the Civil Practice Act prescribes that such an action must be commenced within six years after the cause of action has accrued, except in a case where a different period is expressly prescribed. The causes of action are based upon an alleged incorrect audit by the defendants, a firm of accountants, of the accounts and records of a third party, the preparation therefrom of a balance sheet purporting to show the financial condition of the business of such party, and the certification of the correctness of the same over defendants’ signature. Each of defendants’ answers pleads an affirmative defense setting up the two-year Statute of Limitations under the provisions of section 50 of the Civil Practice Act, upon the theory that each of the actions is for damages caused by alleged malpractice of the defendants. The two-year Statute of Limitations has only been applied in those cases of malpractice which involved injury to the person. The court has refused to apply this statute in a malpractice action involving injury to property. (Camp v. Reeves, 209 App. Div. 488, 494; affd., 240 N. Y. 672.) The motion to strike out the affirmative defense in each answer is, therefore, granted. Orders signed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 Misc. 236, 227 N.Y.S. 218, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-exchange-pacific-bank-v-touche-nysupct-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack