Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Pearlman v. Friedman Alpren & Green LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 24, 2002

300 A.D.2d 203; 750 N.Y.S.2d 869; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12813

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision. The 7 that cite it most often are listed here.

Coutee v. Barington Capital Group, L.P. (9th Cir. 2003)
Campbell v. Columbia University School of Professional Studies (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
Cannonball Fund, Ltd. v. Marcum & Kliegman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Cannonball Fund, Ltd. v. Marcum & Kliegman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Ulico Casualty Co. v. Wilson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Williams v. Coppola (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Goldner v. Possilico (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

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 (Louis York, J.), entered on or about May 15, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion insofar as to dismiss, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), plaintiffs’ first cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, third cause of action for negligence, and request for punitive damages in connection with their second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ first cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, since the allegedly wrongful representation of defendant accounting firm to plaintiffs, its clients, i.e., that if plaintiffs put additional funds into their company, Whirlaway, factors would continue to extend Whirlaway credit, amounts to no more than a nonactionable “expression of future expectation” (Bower v Atlis Sys., 182 AD2d 951, 953, lv denied 80 NY2d 758; cf. Channel Master Corp. v Aluminium Ltd. Sales, 4 NY2d 403, 407).

Also proper was the motion court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ negligence claim, since plaintiffs’ allegations in support of the claim, namely, that if defendant had advised them to invest additional funds as side collateral with Rosenthal and Rosenthal, Inc., a company from which they sought financing, Whirlaway would have been protected from the claims of gen*204eral unsecured creditors and Rosenthal would thereafter have refunded the investment in full, are grossly speculative (see Perkins v Norwick, 257 AD2d 48; see also Sherwood Group v Dornbush, Mensch, Mandelstam & Silverman, 191 AD2d 292, 294).

Finally, the court’s conclusion that punitive damages would not be warranted was correct since plaintiffs did not allege the requisite intentional or deliberate wrongdoing, aggravating or outrageous circumstances, fraudulent or evil motive, or conscious act in willful and wanton disregard of another’s rights (cf. Don Buchwald & Assoc. v Rich, 281 AD2d 329, 330). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Rosenberger, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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