Holloway v. Ernst & Young LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holloway v. Ernst & Young LLP

82 A.D.3d 611, 918 N.Y.2d 726

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 611 (Holloway v. Ernst & Young 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

Holloway v. Ernst & Young LLP, 82 A.D.3d 611, 918 N.Y.2d 726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff is the former chairman, president, and chief executive officer of GMH Associates, Inc., a publicly traded company. Defendant accounting firm provided auditing services to GMH. The allegations in the complaint describing plaintiffs significant contact with defendant do not support his claim that he is an intended third-party beneficiary of the engagement letters between GMH and defendant (see Raffa v Stilloe Roofing & Siding, 182 AD2d 901, 902 [1992]), since a corporation acts solely through its officers and employees (see Diamond v Oreamuno, 29 AD2d 285, 287 [1968], affd 24 NY2d 494 [1969]). Because plaintiff was a Pennsylvania resident, his negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action are time-barred under the governing two-year Pennsylvania statute of limitations (see 42 Pa Cons Stat § 5524 [7]; see CPLR 202; Kat House Prods., LLC v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 71 AD3d 580 [2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Plaintiff is the former chairman, president, and chief executive officer of GMH Associates, Inc., a publicly traded company. Defendant accounting firm provided auditing services to GMH. The allegations in the complaint describing plaintiffs significant contact with defendant do not support his claim that he is an intended third-party beneficiary of the engagement letters between GMH and defendant (see Raffa v Stilloe Roofing & Siding, 182 AD2d 901, 902 [1992]), since a corporation acts solely through its officers and employees (see Diamond v Oreamuno, 29 AD2d 285, 287 [1968], affd 24 NY2d 494 [1969]). Because plaintiff was a Pennsylvania resident, his negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action are time-barred under the governing two-year Pennsylvania statute of limitations (see 42 Pa Cons Stat § 5524 [7]; see CPLR 202; Kat House Prods., LLC v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 71 AD3d 580 [2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 611, 918 N.Y.2d 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloway-v-ernst-young-llp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack