Estate of Burke v. Peter J. Repetti & Co.

255 A.D.2d 483, 680 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12636
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 23, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 483 (Estate of Burke v. Peter J. Repetti & Co.) 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
Estate of Burke v. Peter J. Repetti & Co., 255 A.D.2d 483, 680 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In an action to recover for accounting malpractice and breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated September 18, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“A claim of professional negligence requires proof that there was a departure from the accepted standards of practice and that the departure was a proximate cause of the injury” (Georgetti v United Hosp. Med. Ctr., 204 AD2d 271, 272; see also, 530 E. 89 Corp. v Unger, 43 NY2d 776; Greene v Payne Wood & Littlejohn, 197 AD2d 664, 666). The defendants demonstrated prima facie that they were entitled to summary judgment. They offered an expert’s affidavit which did not merely offer bare, conclusory assertions (see, Maust v Arseneau, 116 AD2d 1012), but dealt fully with the plaintiffs claims, and which averred that the defendants’ actions were consistent with accepted accounting practice. The plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence that the defendants’ actions deviated from accepted accounting practice (see, Whalen v Victory Mem. Hosp., 187 AD2d 503). The conclusory affidavit of the administrator of the plaintiff estate, made without personal knowledge of the relevant facts, failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affirmation of the plaintiffs attorney, also not based on personal knowledge, was likewise inadequate. The defendants were therefore entitled to summary judgment.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Alskom Realty, LLC v. Baranik
2020 NY Slip Op 07153 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Herman v. Franke, Gottsegen, Cox Architects
2017 NY Slip Op 7980 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Jefferson Apts., Inc. v. Mauceri
New York Supreme Court, 2016
Jefferson Apartments, Inc. v. Mauceri
52 Misc. 3d 1012 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
Schwartz v. Leaf, Salzman, Manganelli, Pfiel, & Tendler, LLP
123 A.D.3d 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Shin v. ITCI, Inc.
115 A.D.3d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Bruno v. Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Business
87 A.D.3d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Kristina Denise Enterprises, Inc. v. Arnold
41 A.D.3d 788 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
R.A.B. Contractors, Inc. v. Stillman
299 A.D.2d 165 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. Grant Thornton, LLP
298 A.D.2d 341 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. v. Tooke
293 A.D.2d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Georgetown Mews Owners' Corp. v. Campus Associates
289 A.D.2d 376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
D.D. Hamilton Textiles, Inc. v. Estate of Mate
269 A.D.2d 214 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Speirs v. Dick's Clothing & Sporting Goods, Inc.
268 A.D.2d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Estate of Nevelson v. Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo
259 A.D.2d 282 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 A.D.2d 483, 680 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-burke-v-peter-j-repetti-co-nyappdiv-1998.