Opinion
509
March 18, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about April 16, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 insofar as to dismiss plaintiff's claims for back taxes and interest and his ninth through twelfth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Jason L. Schmidt, for plaintiff-appellant.
Fred N. Knopf, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin, Williams, JJ.
Plaintiff's malpractice claims against defendant accountants for back taxes and interest were properly dismissed, since plaintiff's tax liability was not attributable to an act or omission on defendants' part (see Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc., 88 N.Y.2d 413, 422-423;Alpert v. Shea Gould Climenko Casey, 160 A.D.2d 67, 71-72). Also properly dismissed were plaintiff's causes of action for breach of contract and fraudulent concealment since those causes were duplicative of plaintiff's claims for accounting malpractice (see Nevelson v. Carro, Spanbock, Kaster Cuiffo, 290 A.D.2d 399, 400; Levine v. Lacher Lovell-Taylor, 256 A.D.2d 147, 151; Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose L.L.P., 251 A.D.2d 35, 38-39). Finally, plaintiff's twelfth cause of action, predicated upon defendants' alleged failure to submit to his attention quarterly tax vouchers for making estimated payments, was also properly dismissed since a taxpayer has a non-delegable duty to file timely tax returns (see McMahan v. Commr. of Internal Revenue, 114 F.3d 366, 369; Fleming v. United States of Am., 648 F.2d 1122).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.