From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chemical Bank v. Louis Sternbach Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 7, 1982
91 A.D.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

December 7, 1982


Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kirschenbaum, J.), entered July 30, 1981, denying defendant's motion to dismiss the second cause of action as time barred, is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion granted, with costs. Plaintiff Chemical Bank alleges that it extended credit to Wahl Associates, Incorporated, in reliance upon certified 1972 and 1973 financial statements that were negligently prepared by defendant, a firm of certified public accountants. The Statute of Limitations for accounting malpractice is three years from the date of the commission of the alleged malpractice ( Carr v Lipshie, 8 A.D.2d 330, affd 9 N.Y.2d 983; CPLR 214, subd 6). Thus, plaintiff's action is barred because it concededly did not commence its action until April, 1977, which was more than three years after it received and relied upon the certified statements to extend credit to Wahl. In view of our conclusion that the action is time barred, we need not reach the question of whether the plaintiff has a cause of action but we note in passing that the plaintiff does fall into the class of persons which would reasonably rely on financial statements prepared by defendant ( White v Guarente, 43 N.Y.2d 356).

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Ross, Asch and Alexander, JJ.


Summaries of

Chemical Bank v. Louis Sternbach Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 7, 1982
91 A.D.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Chemical Bank v. Louis Sternbach Company

Case Details

Full title:CHEMICAL BANK, Respondent, v. LOUIS STERNBACH COMPANY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 7, 1982

Citations

91 A.D.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

IN RE AM INTERN., INC. SECURITIES LIT.

ind, or that plaintiff thereby became a member of a fixed and determinate group with vested rights to whom…

Fownes Bros. & Co. v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint did not moot the motions to dismiss, and the court properly directed the…