Yee Sing Tung v. Mon-Leang Mui

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yee Sing Tung v. Mon-Leang Mui

260 A.D.2d 294, 689 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4404

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

DecidedApril 27, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 294 (Yee Sing Tung v. Mon-Leang Mui) 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

Yee Sing Tung v. Mon-Leang Mui, 260 A.D.2d 294, 689 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 6, 1998, after a jury trial, in favor of defendant accountant dismissing plaintiff client’s complaint for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s mid-trial motion to add a malpractice cause of action was properly denied in view of the obvious prejudice to defendant, who did not hire an expert to testify as to the accepted standards of care in a tax audit and whether defendant’s conduct conformed thereto (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23-24; Sharkey v Locust Val. Mar., 96 AD2d 1093, appeal dismissed 61 NY2d 669; Vega v Lenox Hill Hosp., 235 AD2d 302). The trial court adequately and repeatedly instructed the jury that defendant’s testimony regarding out-of-court statements made to him by the IRS agent, claimed on appeal to constitute hearsay, was admitted not for their truth but to explain defendant’s actions. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 6, 1998, after a jury trial, in favor of defendant accountant dismissing plaintiff client’s complaint for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s mid-trial motion to add a malpractice cause of action was properly denied in view of the obvious prejudice to defendant, who did not hire an expert to testify as to the accepted standards of care in a tax audit and whether defendant’s conduct conformed thereto (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23-24; Sharkey v Locust Val. Mar., 96 AD2d 1093, appeal dismissed 61 NY2d 669; Vega v Lenox Hill Hosp., 235 AD2d 302). The trial court adequately and repeatedly instructed the jury that defendant’s testimony regarding out-of-court statements made to him by the IRS agent, claimed on appeal to constitute hearsay, was admitted not for their truth but to explain defendant’s actions. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 294, 689 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yee-sing-tung-v-mon-leang-mui-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack