Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Boykin v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (Ala. 1994)
- Carbotrade SpA v. Bureau Veritas (District Court, S.D. New York 1995)
- Thomas v. N.A. Chase Manhattan Bank (5th Cir. 1993)
- Vestal v. Pontillo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- LEONARDI, PATRICE v. COUNTY OF CAYUGA (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Leonardi v. County of Cayuga (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Leonardi v. County of Cayuga (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Department of Economic Development v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1996)
- Ambassador Factors v. Kandel & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- 125 Associates v. Cralin Trading Associates, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Sinclair's Deli, Inc. v. Associated Mutual Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Tambrands, Inc. v. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Alpert v. Shea Gould Climenko & Casey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
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
Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: "The dismissal of the cause of action based upon fraud is without prejudice to an application by plaintiffs to Supreme Court for leave to serve an amended complaint with regard to that cause of action. Such application should include a copy of the proposed amended complaint accompanied by a disclosure of the evidentiary facts which would support the claims set forth in the proposed amended complaint and would justify the granting of such leave (see, CPLR 3016 [b]; cf. CPLR 3211 [d], [e]).” [See, 65 NY2d 536.]
Judge Alexander taking no part.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.