1. a. As used in this act:
(1) "Accountant" means a person who is registered as a certified public accountant pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1977, c.144 (C.45:2B-1 et seq.), or an accounting firm which is organized for the practice of public accounting pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1977, c.144 (C.45:2B-1 et seq.) and P.L.1969, c.232 (C.14A:17-1 et seq.).
(2) "Bank" means a State or federally chartered bank, savings bank, savings and loan association, credit union, a group of such institutions or its affiliates, subsidiaries, co-lenders, successors or assigns.
(3) "Client" means the party directly engaging an accountant to perform a professional accounting service.
(4) "Professional accounting service" includes, but is not limited to, the compilation, review, certification, or audit of, or the expression of a professional opinion or other reporting on, a financial statement or other information covering a specified period of time.
(5) "Specified transaction" means a particular transaction between a client and a claimant.
b. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, no accountant shall be liable for damages for negligence arising out of and in the course of rendering any professional accounting service unless:
(1) The claimant against the accountant was the accountant's client; or
(2) The accountant:
(a) knew at the time of the engagement by the client, or agreed with the client after the time of the engagement, that the professional accounting service rendered to the client would be made available to the claimant, who was specifically identified to the accountant in connection with a specified transaction made by the claimant;
(b) knew that the claimant intended to rely upon the professional accounting service in connection with that specified transaction; and
(c) directly expressed to the claimant, by words or conduct, the accountant's understanding of the claimant's intended reliance on the professional accounting service; or
(3) In the case of a bank claimant, the accountant acknowledged the bank's intended reliance on the professional accounting service and the client's knowledge of that reliance in a written communication.
Notes of Decisions
Ironworkers Local Union 68 v. Astrazeneca Pharm., LP, 634 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “2d 138, 142-43 (1983) (stating that in New Jersey, "[a]n incorrect statement, negligently made and justifiably relied upon, may be the basis for recovery of damages for economic loss or injury sustained as a consequence of that reliance"), superseded on other grounds by statute,…”
Grant Thornton LLP v. Prospect High Income Fund, 314 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. 2010).
“Few states have adopted this approach, and Rosen-blum itself was superseded by a 1994 statute replacing it with a near-privity standard, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A-25. See, e.g., Touche Ross & Co.”
Ronson v. Talesnick, 33 F. Supp. 2d 347 (D.N.J. 1999).
· cites it 3× “N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A-25 provides in pertinent part: b.”
Walpert, Smullian & Blumenthal, P.A. v. Katz, 762 A.2d 582 (Md. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, no accountant shall be liable for damages for negligence arising out of and in the course of rendering any professional accounting service unless: `(1) The claimant against the accountant was the accountant's client; or `(2) The…”
Kohala Agric. v. Deloitte & Touche, 949 P.2d 141 (Haw. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “2d 138, 153 (1983), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an auditor has a duty to “all those whom that auditor should reasonably foresee as recipients from the company of the [audit report] for its proper business purposes, provided that the recipients rely on the [report]…”
Nycal Corp. v. KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, 688 N.E.2d 1368 (Mass. 1998).
“The judge ruled that the principles stated in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 (1977) applied, and granted the plaintiff a period of discovery to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to support a claim under § 552.”
Arthur Aaron, Etc. v. Frank Ortega (l-1977-21, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022).
· cites it 6× “The judge also held that the claims were precluded by the New Jersey Accountant Liability Act (the Accountant Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25. Because plaintiffs' claims were or could have been asserted in a prior litigation, we affirm based on the entire controversy doctrine.”
Airn Liquidation Trust Co., LLC v. Wipfli LLP (Bankr. D.N.J. 2024).
· cites it 4× “But the complaint acknowledges that the plaintiff has the burden to establish each of the 3 requirements of N.J.S.A. § 2A:53A-25. Wipfli knows that an accounting malpractice claim is being brought against it on behalf of the investors.”
Nype v. Sam (D.N.J. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25(a)(4). Importantly, the Act has also been applied to claims that an accountant negligently completed accounting services other than auditory work.”
Simon Coull v. Eisner Amper (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2023).
“Plaintiff advances several arguments in support of his appeal: the statute of limitations is tolled under the extraordinary circumstance doctrine; defendants owed plaintiff a duty under the Accountants Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25; defendants supplied reports with the…”
N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-25(a)(3): 1 case
Arthur Aaron, Etc. v. Frank Ortega (l-1977-21, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022).
“The judge also held that the claims were precluded by the New Jersey Accountant Liability Act (the Accountant Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25. Because plaintiffs' claims were or could have been asserted in a prior litigation, we affirm based on the entire controversy doctrine.”
N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-25(a)(4): 1 case
Nype v. Sam (D.N.J. 2022).
“” N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25(a)(4). Importantly, the Act has also been applied to claims that an accountant negligently completed accounting services other than auditory work.”
N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-25(a)(5): 1 case
Arthur Aaron, Etc. v. Frank Ortega (l-1977-21, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022).
“The judge also held that the claims were precluded by the New Jersey Accountant Liability Act (the Accountant Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25. Because plaintiffs' claims were or could have been asserted in a prior litigation, we affirm based on the entire controversy doctrine.”
N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-25(b): 1 case
Nype v. Sam (D.N.J. 2022).
“” N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25(a)(4). Importantly, the Act has also been applied to claims that an accountant negligently completed accounting services other than auditory work.”
N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-25(b)(1): 1 case
Arthur Aaron, Etc. v. Frank Ortega (l-1977-21, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022).
“The judge also held that the claims were precluded by the New Jersey Accountant Liability Act (the Accountant Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25. Because plaintiffs' claims were or could have been asserted in a prior litigation, we affirm based on the entire controversy doctrine.”
N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-25(b)(2): 3 cases
Airn Liquidation Trust Co., LLC v. Wipfli LLP (Bankr. D.N.J. 2024).
“But the complaint acknowledges that the plaintiff has the burden to establish each of the 3 requirements of N.J.S.A. § 2A:53A-25. Wipfli knows that an accounting malpractice claim is being brought against it on behalf of the investors.”
Arthur Aaron, Etc. v. Frank Ortega (l-1977-21, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022).
“The judge also held that the claims were precluded by the New Jersey Accountant Liability Act (the Accountant Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25. Because plaintiffs' claims were or could have been asserted in a prior litigation, we affirm based on the entire controversy doctrine.”
N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-25(b)(2)(a): 1 case
Arthur Aaron, Etc. v. Frank Ortega (l-1977-21, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022).
“The judge also held that the claims were precluded by the New Jersey Accountant Liability Act (the Accountant Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25. Because plaintiffs' claims were or could have been asserted in a prior litigation, we affirm based on the entire controversy doctrine.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.