Summary
concluding complaint failed to state a viable cause of action where it did not set forth the terms of the parties' contracts or identify the contract terms on which the claim was based
Summary of this case from Utility Metal Research, Inc. v. Generac Power Systems, Inc.Opinion
June 25, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.).
Defendants-appellants are various accounting firms that prepared the tax returns for limited partnerships in which plaintiffs were investors and defendant Norman Weinstein was the general partner. While the complaint alleges professional malpractice and breach of contract on the part of appellants in the preparation of the tax returns, plaintiffs failed to set forth how and in what manner the appellants' preparation of the limited-partnership tax returns, which are not challenged as being inaccurate in any respect or causally linked to plaintiffs' alleged losses resulting from misapplication of partnership assets, constituted malpractice or breach of contract.
Thus, the complaint, even as supplemented by an affidavit in opposition to the motions herein, did not set forth the terms of the parties' contracts, identify the terms on which the claim against appellants is based, show damages, or demonstrate a causal relationship between the purported conduct by the appellants and any damages suffered by the plaintiffs. Consequently, the complaint failed to plead a viable cause of action against the appellants in either breach of contract or malpractice (see, Gall v. Summit, Rovins Feldesman, 222 A.D.2d 225, lv dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 919; Matter of Sud v. Sud, 211 A.D.2d 423).
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Wallach, JJ.