Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

DG Liquidation, Inc. v. Anchin, Block & Anchin, LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 10, 2002

300 A.D.2d 70; 750 N.Y.S.2d 753; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12019

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

VTech Holdings Ltd. v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP (District Court, S.D. New York 2004)
Darby Scott, Ltd. v. Michael S. Libock & Co., LLC, CPAS (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Kolb v. Rabinowitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Kolb v. Rabinowitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Staffenberg v. Fairfield Pagma Associates, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Able Energy, Inc. v. Marcum & Kliegman LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
C.P. Ward, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Caprer v. Nussbaum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Friedman v. Anderson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about April 4, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment only to the extent of dismissing the third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 27, 2002, which, upon the grant of reargument, adhered to the aforesaid order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action for accounting malpractice was properly denied since the record discloses the existence of material triable issues of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320), among them, whether defendant’s failure to discover and/or report discrepancies in a computer program or irregularities with respect to inventory was a proximate cause of plaintiffs losses.

The cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty was properly *71dismissed since the duty owed by an accountant to a client is generally not fiduciary in nature (Nate B. & Frances Spingold Found. v Wallin, Simon, Black & Co., 184 AD2d 464, 465), and there was no showing of the limited circumstances in which such a duty might arise (see e.g. Lavin v Kaufman, Greenhut, Lebowitz & Forman, 226 AD2d 107).

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.