Opinion
April 13, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff, Saul B. Hamond, was the limited partner of the defendant Schenker Realty Co. Schenker Realty Co., through its general partner, Harold Schenker, contracted with the defendant Marks Shron Company, an accounting firm, to handle the accounting for the partnership. Hamond alleged that Harold Schenker and his son, Mark, Harold's successor in interest to the general partnership, mismanaged and misappropriated the funds of the partnership. Hamond also alleged that Marks Shron Company, as the party responsible for monitoring the partnership accounts, failed to notify Hamond of the alleged mismanagement, and on that basis, committed accounting malpractice.
In moving for summary judgment, Marks Shron Company met its initial burden by demonstrating that it had no contract or relationship with Hamond ( see, CPLR 3212; Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1067; see also, Iselin Co. v. Mann Judd Landau, 71 N.Y.2d 420, 425). In order to defeat Marks Shron Company's prima facie showing that it was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, Hamond was required to produce admissible evidence to demonstrate a relationship with the accounting firm "sufficiently approaching privity" ( Iselin Co. v. Mann Judd Landau, supra, at 425; Westpac Banking Corp. v. Deschamps, 66 N.Y.2d 16, 19; see also, Credit Alliance Corp. v. Andersen Co., 65 N.Y.2d 536, 551; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). Hamond failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the cross motion of the defendant Marks Shron Company for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Altman, J.P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.