Summary
In Kanev v Turk, 187 AD2d 395 [1st Dept 1992], the court held that plaintiff adequately set forth a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud by alleging that her accountant advised her to loan $25,000 to another one of his clients, advised her there was no need to secure the loan, knew of the borrower's insolvency and intentionally deceived her, and she relied on his advice and was damaged as a result, since the loan was not fully repaid.
Summary of this case from Reville v. Melvin Ginsberg & Assocs.Opinion
November 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma V. Santaella, J.).
The verified complaint adequately sets forth causes of action for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia: that defendant-appellant was her accountant; that he advised her to loan $25,000 to another one of his clients; that he advised her that there was no need to secure the loan; that he knew of the borrower's insolvency and intentionally deceived plaintiff; that plaintiff relied on defendant-appellant's advice; and, plaintiff was damaged as a result, since the loan has not been fully repaid (see, Lyons v Quandt, 91 A.D.2d 709; Mandelblatt v Devon Stores, 132 A.D.2d 162, 166-168).
We have considered all other claims and find them to be of no merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.