JP Foodservice Distributors, Inc. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

291 A.D.2d 323, 737 N.Y.S.2d 849, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2037
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 26, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 323 (JP Foodservice Distributors, Inc. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers 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
JP Foodservice Distributors, Inc. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 291 A.D.2d 323, 737 N.Y.S.2d 849, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2037 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—Order, [324]*324Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered July 27, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion to stay this action pending final resolution of a related action before the same court and Justice, entitled JP Foodservice Distributors, Inc. v Sorrento, Inc. (Index No. 604112/00), unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant the motion in part to the extent of staying only the trial of this action pending the trial of the related action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff purchased all of the outstanding capital stock of Sorrento Food Service, Inc. (SFS), allegedly in reliance on financial statements audited by the predecessor-in-interest of defendant accounting firm. Plaintiff now alleges that such financial statements were materially false and misleading, and sues defendant in this action for alleged negligence in auditing the financial statements. At the same time, plaintiff is suing the seller of SFS’s stock for fraud, inter alia, in a separate action. We believe that the factual issues in the two actions are so closely intertwined that a stay of the trial of this action against the accountants pending the trial of the related action against the seller would serve the interests of judicial economy and avoidance of inconsistent results (see, CPLR 2201), and modify the order of the IAS court accordingly. We do not, however, grant defendant’s motion to the extent it sought a stay of discovery. We further note that the IAS court retains discretion to consolidate the two actions should such relief be sought (see, CPLR 602 [a]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Delos Megacore Ltd. v. Omega Investments Ltd.
2017 NY Slip Op 5515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
291 A.D.2d 323, 737 N.Y.S.2d 849, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jp-foodservice-distributors-inc-v-pricewaterhousecoopers-llp-nyappdiv-2002.