From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Apple Bank for Savings v. House Coopers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 9, 2010
70 A.D.3d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2025.

February 9, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered May 15, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in an action alleging accounting malpractice, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims accruing more than three years prior to the commencement of this action, plaintiff's claim for gross negligence and its claim for punitive damages, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt Mosle LLP, New York (Eliot Lauer of counsel), for appellant.

Foley Lardner LLP, New York (Peter N. Wang of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


Plaintiffs malpractice claim accrued in early 2000 when its accountant rendered the allegedly improper tax advice. However, the motion court erred in finding that the statute of limitations was tolled under the continuous representation doctrine during defendant's subsequent relationship with plaintiff. Although defendant audited plaintiff's year-end financial statements, prepared its tax returns and provided ad hoc tax advice to plaintiff, it never had any express, mutual agreement to advise plaintiff on the effect of the stock buyback, after the original advice ( see Williamson v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 9 NY3d 1, 10-11; Zaref v Berk Michaels, 192 AD2d 346, 347-348).

Dismissal of the claim alleging gross negligence is appropriate because without the time-barred claims, defendant's conduct could not arise to gross negligence, as it did not "smack[] of intentional wrongdoing" ( Colnaghi, U.S.A. v Jewelers Protection Servs., 81 NY2d 821, 824 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Furthermore, since defendant's conduct was neither wantonly dishonest nor aimed at the public, the claim for punitive damages should have been dismissed ( 164 Mulberry St. Corp. v Columbia Univ., 4 AD3d 49, 60, lv dismissed 2 NY3d 793).

[Prior Case History: 23 Misc 3d 1126(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 50948(U).]


Summaries of

Apple Bank for Savings v. House Coopers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 9, 2010
70 A.D.3d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Apple Bank for Savings v. House Coopers

Case Details

Full title:APPLE BANK FOR SAVINGS, Respondent, v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP…

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

Date published: Feb 9, 2010

Citations

70 A.D.3d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 893
895 N.Y.S.2d 361

Citing Cases

Apple Bank for Savings v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Plaintiff did not argue that its contract claim was governed by the six-year statute of limitations in CPLR…

Targum v. Citrin Cooperman & Co.

To recover punitive damages, plaintiffs must show that "defendant's conduct was . . . wantonly dishonest."…