Fred Smith Plumbing and Heating Co. v. Christensen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fred Smith Plumbing and Heating Co. v. Christensen

242 A.D.2d 429, 662 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8610

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 429 (Fred Smith Plumbing and Heating Co. v. Christensen) 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

Fred Smith Plumbing and Heating Co. v. Christensen, 242 A.D.2d 429, 662 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered March 12, 1997, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment to strike defendant’s second affirmative defense, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.

In Smith Plumbing & Heating Co. v Christensen (233 AD2d 207), an appeal which arose out of the identical complaint, we denied defendants’ motion to dismiss certain accounting malpractice claims as time barred pursuant to CPLR 214 (6). The relevant facts are summarized in our order in that case.

Plaintiff now moves for an order striking defendants’ affirmative defense based upon the Statute of Limitations. Since our review of the record, including the deposition testimony of respondent Christensen, and the invoices from respondent CHR spanning from August 1990 to March 1992, reveals that the defendants were engaged in providing continuous accounting representation until discharged in May 1992, during which time period they allegedly failed to properly advise plaintiff with respect to, inter alia, the reasonableness of its executive compensation and the option of electing Subchapter S status, the motion is granted and the affirmative defense stricken (Hall & Co. v Steiner & Mondore, 147 AD2d 225, 228). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered March 12, 1997, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment to strike defendant’s second affirmative defense, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.

In Smith Plumbing & Heating Co. v Christensen (233 AD2d 207), an appeal which arose out of the identical complaint, we denied defendants’ motion to dismiss certain accounting malpractice claims as time barred pursuant to CPLR 214 (6). The relevant facts are summarized in our order in that case.

Plaintiff now moves for an order striking defendants’ affirmative defense based upon the Statute of Limitations. Since our review of the record, including the deposition testimony of respondent Christensen, and the invoices from respondent CHR spanning from August 1990 to March 1992, reveals that the defendants were engaged in providing continuous accounting representation until discharged in May 1992, during which time period they allegedly failed to properly advise plaintiff with respect to, inter alia, the reasonableness of its executive compensation and the option of electing Subchapter S status, the motion is granted and the affirmative defense stricken (Hall & Co. v Steiner & Mondore, 147 AD2d 225, 228). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 429, 662 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-smith-plumbing-and-heating-co-v-christensen-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack