professional malpractice claim in New York

2024Corp., 295 AD2d 229 [1st Dept 2002] and held that: "'Although contribution under CPLR 1401 is not available where the damages sought by the plaintiff are exclusively for breach of contract,' here there is also a professional malpractice claim alleged against IBI in the main action, 'and professionals may be subject to tort liability for failure to exercise reasonable care, irrespective of their contractual duties.' (Tower Bldg.

2024Corp., 295 AD2d 229 [1st Dept 2002] and held that: "'Although contribution under CPLR 1401 is not available where the damages sought by the plaintiff are exclusively for breach of contract,' here there is also a professional malpractice claim alleged against IBI in the main action, 'and professionals may be subject to tort liability for failure to exercise reasonable care, irrespective of their contractual duties.' (Tower Bldg.

2018That is because, as the majority recognizes, a tort claim may be maintained in addition to a contract claim where there is a "breach of a legal duty independent of the contract" ( see Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp. , 79 N.Y.2d 540 , 551, 583 N.Y.S.2d 957 , 593 N.E.2d 1365 [1992] ).

2002Third-party plaintiff has asserted a professional malpractice claim against Brice, and professionals “may be subject to tort liability for failure to exercise reason able care, irrespective of their contractual duties” (see, Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 551 ; see also, 17 Vista Fee Assoc. v Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. of Am., 259 AD2d 75, 83 ).

2016The branch of the motion which is to dismiss the eleventh cause of action (negligent misrepresentation), is granted as the same is duplicative of the professional malpractice claim as they arose from the same facts and do not allege distinct damages ( see, Blanco v Polanco, 116 AD3d 892 [2014]; Bruno v Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Leon Petroleum, LLC v Carl S. Levine & Associates, P.C., 80 AD3d 573 [2011]; Stuart v Kushner, 68 AD3d 974 [2009]; Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972 [2007]; cf. Rosenbach v Diversified Grp., Inc ., 2006 WL 1310656, 2006 NY Slip Op. 508

2016The branch of the motion which is to dismiss the eleventh cause of action (negligent misrepresentation) is granted as the same is duplicative of the professional malpractice claim as they arose from the same facts and do not allege distinct damages (see Blanco v Polanco, 116 AD3d 892 [2014]; Bruno v Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Leon Petroleum, LLC v Carl S. Levine & Assoc., P. C., 80 AD3d 573 [2011]; Stuart v Kushner, 68 AD3d 974 [2009]; Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972 [2007]; cf. Rosenbach v Diversified Group, Inc., 12 Misc 3d 1152[A] , 2006 NY Slip Op 50856[

2016The branch of the motion which is to dismiss the eleventh cause of action (negligent misrepresentation), is granted as the same is duplicative of the professional malpractice claim as they arose from the same facts and do not allege distinct damages ( see, Blanco v Polanco, 116 AD3d 892 [2014]; Bruno v Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Leon Petroleum, LLC v Carl S. Levine & Associates, P.C., 80 AD3d 573 [2011]; Stuart v Kushner, 68 AD3d 974 [2009]; Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972 [2007]; cf. Rosenbach v Diversified Grp., Inc ., 2006 WL 1310656, 2006 NY Slip Op. 508

2016The branch of the motion which is to dismiss the eleventh cause of action (negligent misrepresentation) is granted as the same is duplicative of the professional malpractice claim as they arose from the same facts and do not allege distinct damages (see Blanco v Polanco, 116 AD3d 892 [2014]; Bruno v Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Leon Petroleum, LLC v Carl S. Levine & Assoc., P. C., 80 AD3d 573 [2011]; Stuart v Kushner, 68 AD3d 974 [2009]; Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972 [2007]; cf. Rosenbach v Diversified Group, Inc., 12 Misc 3d 1152[A] , 2006 NY Slip Op 50856[

2016The branch of the motion which is to dismiss the eleventh cause of action (negligent misrepresentation), is granted as the same is duplicative of the professional malpractice claim as they arose from the same facts and do not allege distinct damages ( see, Blanco v Polanco, 116 AD3d 892 [2014]; Bruno v Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Leon Petroleum, LLC v Carl S. Levine & Associates, P.C., 80 AD3d 573 [2011]; Stuart v Kushner, 68 AD3d 974 [2009]; Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972 [2007]; cf. Rosenbach v Diversified Grp., Inc ., 2006 WL 1310656, 2006 NY Slip Op. 508

2016The branch of the motion which is to dismiss the eleventh cause of action (negligent misrepresentation) is granted as the same is duplicative of the professional malpractice claim as they arose from the same facts and do not allege distinct damages (see Blanco v Polanco, 116 AD3d 892 [2014]; Bruno v Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Leon Petroleum, LLC v Carl S. Levine & Assoc., P. C., 80 AD3d 573 [2011]; Stuart v Kushner, 68 AD3d 974 [2009]; Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972 [2007]; cf. Rosenbach v Diversified Group, Inc., 12 Misc 3d 1152[A] , 2006 NY Slip Op 50856[

2016The branch of the motion which is to dismiss the eleventh cause of action (negligent misrepresentation), is granted as the same is duplicative of the professional malpractice claim as they arose from the same facts and do not allege distinct damages ( see, Blanco v Polanco, 116 AD3d 892 [2014]; Bruno v Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Leon Petroleum, LLC v Carl S. Levine & Associates, P.C., 80 AD3d 573 [2011]; Stuart v Kushner, 68 AD3d 974 [2009]; Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972 [2007]; cf. Rosenbach v Diversified Grp., Inc ., 2006 WL 1310656, 2006 NY Slip Op. 508

2016The branch of the motion which is to dismiss the eleventh cause of action (negligent misrepresentation) is granted as the same is duplicative of the professional malpractice claim as they arose from the same facts and do not allege distinct damages (see Blanco v Polanco, 116 AD3d 892 [2014]; Bruno v Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Leon Petroleum, LLC v Carl S. Levine & Assoc., P. C., 80 AD3d 573 [2011]; Stuart v Kushner, 68 AD3d 974 [2009]; Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972 [2007]; cf. Rosenbach v Diversified Group, Inc., 12 Misc 3d 1152[A] , 2006 NY Slip Op 50856[

2016The branch of the motion which is to dismiss the eleventh cause of action (negligent misrepresentation), is granted as the same is duplicative of the professional malpractice claim as they arose from the same facts and do not allege distinct damages ( see, Blanco v Polanco, 116 AD3d 892 [2014]; Bruno v Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Leon Petroleum, LLC v Carl S. Levine & Associates, P.C., 80 AD3d 573 [2011]; Stuart v Kushner, 68 AD3d 974 [2009]; Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972 [2007]; cf. Rosenbach v Diversified Grp., Inc ., 2006 WL 1310656, 2006 NY Slip Op. 508

2016The branch of the motion which is to dismiss the eleventh cause of action (negligent misrepresentation) is granted as the same is duplicative of the professional malpractice claim as they arose from the same facts and do not allege distinct damages (see Blanco v Polanco, 116 AD3d 892 [2014]; Bruno v Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Leon Petroleum, LLC v Carl S. Levine & Assoc., P. C., 80 AD3d 573 [2011]; Stuart v Kushner, 68 AD3d 974 [2009]; Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972 [2007]; cf. Rosenbach v Diversified Group, Inc., 12 Misc 3d 1152[A] , 2006 NY Slip Op 50856[

2014Partnership v Kaplan & Kaplan, PLLC, 52 AD3d 417, 417 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]).

2014Partnership v Kaplan & Kaplan, PLLC, 52 AD3d 417, 417 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]).

2014Plaintiff alleged that UHY breached its agreements with CRM, which contracts were for the benefit of the trusts, by, among other things, “failing to originate, follow, and/or consistently apply generally accepted accounting [principles] and generally accept[ed] auditing standards in its analysis of the [t]rusts’ reserve liabilities and financial conditions,” “failing or refusing to offer an accurate analysis of the [t]rusts’ financial conditions,” and “failing or refusing to identify the dangers the [t]rusts’ liabilities posed to their solvency.” These allegations are couched as breaches of co

2014Plaintiff alleged that UHY breached its agreements with CRM, which contracts were for the benefit of the trusts, by, among other things, “failing to originate, follow, and/or consistently apply generally accepted accounting [principles] and generally accept[ed] auditing standards in its analysis of the [t]rusts’ reserve liabilities and financial conditions,” “failing or refusing to offer an accurate analysis of the [t]rusts’ financial conditions,” and “failing or refusing to identify the dangers the [t]rusts’ liabilities posed to their solvency.” These allegations are couched as breaches of co

2019Although a six-year limitations period ordinarily applies to breach of contract claims, such a cause of action will be construed as a professional malpractice claim subject to the three-year limitations period "to the extent that the allegations are that [the defendant] failed to perform its contractual services in a professional, nonnegligent manner" ( New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v SGRisk, LLC , 116 AD3d 1148 , 1150 [2014]).

2018New York recognizes a distinct claim for professional malpractice and allows parties to pursue simultaneously a professional malpractice claim and a breach of contract claim ( see *463 Santulli v. Englert, Reilly & McHugh , 78 N.Y.2d 700 , 579 N.Y.S.2d 324 , 586 N.E.2d 1014 [1992] ; Sears, Roebuck v. Enco Assoc. , 43 N.Y.2d 389 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 767 , 372 N.E.2d 555 [1977] ; see also Robins v. Finestone , 308 N.Y. 543 , 127 N.E.2d 330 [1955] ).

2018New York recognizes a distinct claim for professional malpractice and allows parties to pursue simultaneously a professional malpractice claim and a breach of contract claim ( see *463 Santulli v. Englert, Reilly & McHugh , 78 N.Y.2d 700 , 579 N.Y.S.2d 324 , 586 N.E.2d 1014 [1992] ; Sears, Roebuck v. Enco Assoc. , 43 N.Y.2d 389 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 767 , 372 N.E.2d 555 [1977] ; see also Robins v. Finestone , 308 N.Y. 543 , 127 N.E.2d 330 [1955] ).

2018New York recognizes a distinct claim for professional malpractice and allows parties to pursue simultaneously a professional malpractice claim and a breach of contract claim ( see *463 Santulli v. Englert, Reilly & McHugh , 78 N.Y.2d 700 , 579 N.Y.S.2d 324 , 586 N.E.2d 1014 [1992] ; Sears, Roebuck v. Enco Assoc. , 43 N.Y.2d 389 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 767 , 372 N.E.2d 555 [1977] ; see also Robins v. Finestone , 308 N.Y. 543 , 127 N.E.2d 330 [1955] ).

2018New York recognizes a distinct claim for professional malpractice and allows parties to pursue simultaneously a professional malpractice claim and a breach of contract claim ( see *463 Santulli v. Englert, Reilly & McHugh , 78 N.Y.2d 700 , 579 N.Y.S.2d 324 , 586 N.E.2d 1014 [1992] ; Sears, Roebuck v. Enco Assoc. , 43 N.Y.2d 389 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 767 , 372 N.E.2d 555 [1977] ; see also Robins v. Finestone , 308 N.Y. 543 , 127 N.E.2d 330 [1955] ).

2004For the same reasons, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff leave to assert a professional malpractice claim against Peco in the third amended complaint, as such claim (assuming that it once existed) is also time-barred (see CPLR 214 [6]; Brothers v Florence, supra).

1991Plaintiff cites the decision of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in Twitchell v MacKay ( 78 AD2d 125 ), in support of her contention that a professional relationship existed between the parties notwithstanding its genesis and that a professional malpractice claim might emerge from such a situation where the treatment rendered deviates from accepted standards of care.

1991It is well settled that such a claim may be asserted absent privity of contract where the relationship of the parties is "so close as to approach that of privity” (Ossining Union Free School Dist. v Anderson LaRocca Anderson, 73 NY2d 417, 424; see, Credit Alliance Corp. v Andersen & Co., 65 NY2d 536 , mod on other grounds 66 NY2d 812 ; Glanzer v Shepard, 233 NY 236 ).

1991The thrust of defendant’s contention in support of this application is that his treatment, examination, evaluation, recommendation and opinion are immune from forming the basis of a civil action such as this one inasmuch as they were rendered pursuant to a judicial directive and in relation to judicial proceedings (see, Tolisano v Texon, 144 AD2d 267 , revd 75 NY2d 732 for the reasons stated in the dissenting opn of the App Div, 1st Dept, opn of Smith, J.; Schiffman v Kaplan, NYLJ, July 31, 1990, at 20, col 3 [Sup Ct, Nassau County]; Ferguson v Wolkin, 131 Misc 2d 304 ; Davis v Tirrell, 110 Mi

1991The thrust of defendant’s contention in support of this application is that his treatment, examination, evaluation, recommendation and opinion are immune from forming the basis of a civil action such as this one inasmuch as they were rendered pursuant to a judicial directive and in relation to judicial proceedings (see, Tolisano v Texon, 144 AD2d 267 , revd 75 NY2d 732 for the reasons stated in the dissenting opn of the App Div, 1st Dept, opn of Smith, J.; Schiffman v Kaplan, NYLJ, July 31, 1990, at 20, col 3 [Sup Ct, Nassau County]; Ferguson v Wolkin, 131 Misc 2d 304 ; Davis v Tirrell, 110 Mi

1991The thrust of defendant’s contention in support of this application is that his treatment, examination, evaluation, recommendation and opinion are immune from forming the basis of a civil action such as this one inasmuch as they were rendered pursuant to a judicial directive and in relation to judicial proceedings (see, Tolisano v Texon, 144 AD2d 267 , revd 75 NY2d 732 for the reasons stated in the dissenting opn of the App Div, 1st Dept, opn of Smith, J.; Schiffman v Kaplan, NYLJ, July 31, 1990, at 20, col 3 [Sup Ct, Nassau County]; Ferguson v Wolkin, 131 Misc 2d 304 ; Davis v Tirrell, 110 Mi

1991The thrust of defendant’s contention in support of this application is that his treatment, examination, evaluation, recommendation and opinion are immune from forming the basis of a civil action such as this one inasmuch as they were rendered pursuant to a judicial directive and in relation to judicial proceedings (see, Tolisano v Texon, 144 AD2d 267 , revd 75 NY2d 732 for the reasons stated in the dissenting opn of the App Div, 1st Dept, opn of Smith, J.; Schiffman v Kaplan, NYLJ, July 31, 1990, at 20, col 3 [Sup Ct, Nassau County]; Ferguson v Wolkin, 131 Misc 2d 304 ; Davis v Tirrell, 110 Mi