Delollis v. Margolin, Winer & Evens, LLP

121 A.D.3d 830, 995 N.Y.S.2d 103
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 15, 2014
Docket2013-06930
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 830 (Delollis v. Margolin, Winer & Evens, 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
Delollis v. Margolin, Winer & Evens, LLP, 121 A.D.3d 830, 995 N.Y.S.2d 103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for accounting malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Driscoll, J.), dated June 14, 2013, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment limiting the plaintiffs’ damages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Empire State Carpenter’s Annuity Fund and Empire State Pension Fund, of which the plaintiffs are trustees, invested in the Income Plus Investment Fund (hereinafter Income Plus), which, in turn, allegedly invested a portion of its assets with Bernard Madoff or Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC. The defendant accounting firm allegedly audited the financial statements of Income Plus. The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages allegedly sustained as a result of the defendant’s malpractice with respect to the audits. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment limiting the plaintiffs’ damages. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

While damages may not be based solely on fictitious profits, the defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, at this stage of the proceedings, that the plaintiffs’ claimed damages *831 merely constituted fictitious profits or were speculative (see Hecht v Andover Assoc. Mgt. Corp., 114 AD3d 638 [2014]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment limiting the plaintiffs’ damages (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Katz v. Beil
142 A.D.3d 957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Smith v. Kaplan Belsky Ross Bartell, LLP
126 A.D.3d 877 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 A.D.3d 830, 995 N.Y.S.2d 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delollis-v-margolin-winer-evens-llp-nyappdiv-2014.