Starr v. Fuoco Group LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Starr v. Fuoco Group LLP

137 A.D.3d 634, 26 N.Y.S.3d 853

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2016

Docket582 151755/14

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 634 (Starr v. Fuoco Group 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

Starr v. Fuoco Group LLP, 137 A.D.3d 634, 26 N.Y.S.3d 853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered October 27, 2014, which granted defendants Eureka Capital Markets, LLC (Eureka), Mark Hyman, and Lana Simkina’s (collectively, the Eureka defendants) motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action (negligence and gross negligence) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While “ [professionals . . . may be subject to tort liability for failure to exercise reasonable care, irrespective of their contractual duties” (see Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 551 [1992]), a financial advisor such as Eureka is not a “professional” (see Leather v United States Trust Co. of N.Y., 279 AD2d 311, 311-312 [1st Dept 2001]). Thus, any duty owed by the Eureka defendants to render financial advisory services to plaintiff in a competent manner must arise out of a contract. Indeed, the complaint alleges that plaintiff “retained” the Eureka defendants and that Eureka “agreed to act as [his] financial advisor” (emphasis added). * However, “[c]laims based on negligent or grossly negligent performance of a contract are not cognizable” (Kordower-Zetlin v Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 134 AD3d 556, 557 [1st Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Saxe and Richter, JJ.

*

The parties dispute whether such a contract would have to be in writing. We need not resolve that dispute, since plaintiff is not suing for breach of contract.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered October 27, 2014, which granted defendants Eureka Capital Markets, LLC (Eureka), Mark Hyman, and Lana Simkina’s (collectively, the Eureka defendants) motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action (negligence and gross negligence) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While “ [professionals . . . may be subject to tort liability for failure to exercise reasonable care, irrespective of their contractual duties” (see Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 551 [1992]), a financial advisor such as Eureka is not a “professional” (see Leather v United States Trust Co. of N.Y., 279 AD2d 311, 311-312 [1st Dept 2001]). Thus, any duty owed by the Eureka defendants to render financial advisory services to plaintiff in a competent manner must arise out of a contract. Indeed, the complaint alleges that plaintiff “retained” the Eureka defendants and that Eureka “agreed to act as [his] financial advisor” (emphasis added). * However, “[c]laims based on negligent or grossly negligent performance of a contract are not cognizable” (Kordower-Zetlin v Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 134 AD3d 556, 557 [1st Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Saxe and Richter, JJ.

*

The parties dispute whether such a contract would have to be in writing. We need not resolve that dispute, since plaintiff is not suing for breach of contract.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 634, 26 N.Y.S.3d 853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starr-v-fuoco-group-llp-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack