Ember v. Seidman

Full title: NORMAN EMBER et al., Appellants, v. BDO SEIDMAN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Dec 3, 1992

188 A.D.2d 309 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 3, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).

Triable issues of fact exist, including but not limited to whether defendant Tonelson selected the date on which plaintiff Norman Ember was to receive payment of the sale proceeds and the possible advice of prior accountants concerning the effects of the alternative minimum tax. The court properly directed the parties to proceed with discovery toward this end. Nor should this Court consider theories of liability not presented in the first instance (Douglas Elliman-Gibbons Ives v Kellerman, 172 A.D.2d 307, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 856).

Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.