JP Foodservice Distributors, Inc. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

33 A.D.3d 316, 822 N.Y.S.2d 47
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 3, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 33 A.D.3d 316 (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, 33 A.D.3d 316, 822 N.Y.S.2d 47 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 11, 2006, dismissing the complaint in an action against an accountant for negligent misrepresentation of a client’s financial condition, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered April 11, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion for a joint trial of this action with an action brought by plaintiff against the client, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted on the ground that there is no evidence of conduct on [317]*317defendant’s part linking it to plaintiff and evincing its understanding of plaintiff’s reliance on the closing balance sheet it certified (see Credit Alliance Corp. v Arthur Andersen & Co., 65 NY2d 536, 551 [1985]; see e.g. Security Pac. Bus. Credit v Peat Marwick Main & Co., 79 NY2d 695, 704-706 [1992]; William Iselin & Co. v Mann Judd Landau, 71 NY2d 420, 425-427 [1988]). Plaintiffs motion for a joint trial was properly denied as moot in view of the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The grant of summary judgment also necessarily required denial of plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint (see Buckley & Co. v City of New York, 121 AD2d 933, 934-935 [1986], lv dismissed 69 NY2d 742 [1987]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Marlow, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

HSBC Bank USA v. Philistin
99 A.D.3d 667 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
McElroy v. Bernstein
72 A.D.3d 757 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 A.D.3d 316, 822 N.Y.S.2d 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jp-foodservice-distributors-inc-v-pricewaterhousecoopers-llp-nyappdiv-2006.