From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ackerman v. Waterhouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 20, 1995
216 A.D.2d 123 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 20, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).


The IAS Court properly denied the motion seeking to dismiss, for lack of contractual privity, the third and fourth causes of action of the amended complaint, wherein the plaintiffs, as limited partners of the CPG partnerships, sought damages for breach of the contracts pursuant to which defendant PW had performed accounting and auditing services for the partnerships since the defendant accounting firm owed a contractual duty to the limited partners, who were members of a settled and particularized class, known to defendant PW to have a need to rely upon the prepared returns and statements ( Goulding v. United States, 957 F.2d 1420, 1428; cf., White v. Guarente, 43 N.Y.2d 356, 363).

The record reveals that the tax preparation services at issue in the underlying litigation were rendered by defendant PW directly to the limited partners, that their reliance on those services was anticipated and encouraged, and that the cost of those services was allocated among the limited partners. Moreover, in a letter to the limited partners encouraging them to decline a settlement offered by the IRS in 1985, defendant PW specifically advised the limited partners that it was handling the IRS audit "on behalf of the partnership in general and on your behalf as a limited partner".

The third and fourth causes of action of the amended complaint therefore state a viable claim by the limited partners for breach of contract. Defendant's contention that the plaintiffs' claims should be restricted to a tort, rather than a contract, theory of recovery, lacks merit, since professional malpractice claims may be stated either in tort or contract ( Santulli v. Englert, Reilly McHugh, 78 N.Y.2d 700, 707), and since the record reveals that the services of the defendant arose out of, and were rendered directly to the limited partners, as aggregates of the partnerships, based upon a contractual relationship ( Goulding v United States, supra; Williams v. Hartshorn, 296 N.Y. 49, 51).

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Ackerman v. Waterhouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 20, 1995
216 A.D.2d 123 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Ackerman v. Waterhouse

Case Details

Full title:CAROLYN ACKERMAN et al., Respondents, v. PRICE WATERHOUSE, Appellant. (And…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 20, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 123 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
629 N.Y.S.2d 5

Citing Cases

Gray v. Wallman Kramer

Under these circumstances, defendant Michel's third-party claim against Cahill cannot be characterized as one…

Caprer v. Nussbaum

While Ultramares made it clear that accountants were not to be liable in negligence on the generalized basis…