DG Liquidation, Inc. v. Anchin, Block & Anchin, LLP

300 A.D.2d 70, 750 N.Y.S.2d 753, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12019
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 10, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 70 (DG Liquidation, Inc. v. Anchin, Block & Anchin, 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
DG Liquidation, Inc. v. Anchin, Block & Anchin, LLP, 300 A.D.2d 70, 750 N.Y.S.2d 753, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12019 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about April 4, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment only to the extent of dismissing the third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 27, 2002, which, upon the grant of reargument, adhered to the aforesaid order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action for accounting malpractice was properly denied since the record discloses the existence of material triable issues of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320), among them, whether defendant’s failure to discover and/or report discrepancies in a computer program or irregularities with respect to inventory was a proximate cause of plaintiffs losses.

The cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty was properly [71]*71dismissed since the duty owed by an accountant to a client is generally not fiduciary in nature (Nate B. & Frances Spingold Found. v Wallin, Simon, Black & Co., 184 AD2d 464, 465), and there was no showing of the limited circumstances in which such a duty might arise (see e.g. Lavin v Kaufman, Greenhut, Lebowitz & Forman, 226 AD2d 107).

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Darby Scott, Ltd. v. Michael S. Libock & Co., LLC, CPAS
177 N.Y.S.3d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Kolb v. Rabinowitz
117 A.D.3d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Staffenberg v. Fairfield Pagma Associates, L.P.
95 A.D.3d 873 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
C.P. Ward, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP
74 A.D.3d 1828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Able Energy, Inc. v. Marcum & Kliegman LLP
69 A.D.3d 443 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Caprer v. Nussbaum
36 A.D.3d 176 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Friedman v. Anderson
23 A.D.3d 163 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
VTech Holdings Ltd. v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP
348 F. Supp. 2d 255 (S.D. New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
300 A.D.2d 70, 750 N.Y.S.2d 753, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dg-liquidation-inc-v-anchin-block-anchin-llp-nyappdiv-2002.