You are here: / / Criteria for Professional Negligence Actions Against Accountant Not in...
,

Criteria for Professional Negligence Actions Against Accountant Not in Privity with Plaintiff and Against Actuary

The Second Department explained the criteria for professional negligence actions against an accountant, with whom the plaintiffs were not in privity, and against an actuary:

Accountants may be “held liable in certain circumstances for negligent misrepresentations made to parties with whom they have no contractual relationship, but who have relied to their detriment on inaccurate financial statements prepared by the accountant” … . In order to establish such liability, the relationship between the accountant and the party must be found to approach privity, through a showing that the following prerequisites are satisfied: “(1) the accountants must have been aware that the financial reports were to be used for a particular purpose or purposes; (2) in the furtherance of which a known party or parties was intended to rely; and (3) there must have been some conduct on the part of the accountants linking them to that party or parties, which evinces the accountants’ understanding of that party or parties’ reliance” … . *  *  *

Because an actuary is not required to be licensed, is not regulated, and is not subject to a State-created disciplinary system, an actuary is not a “professional” for purposes of a malpractice cause of action … . Nevertheless, an actuary, possessing special knowledge, can be held liable for the negligent performance of its services …. [T]he complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action against [the actuary] on a theory of common-law negligence ….  Health Acquisition Corp v Program Risk Mgt, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02714, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

You might also like
‘ANDERS’ BRIEF DEFICIENT; NEW COUNSEL ASSIGNED FOR THE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR IN THE PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY; THE PETITION WAS GRANTED; BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED ON WHETHER MODIFICATION WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN; MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER GRANTING FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT ALLEGED ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS WAS IN NASSAU COUNTY BUT NEVER AMENDED ITS CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION WHICH DESIGNATED ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AS QUEENS COUNTY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE OF THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FROM QUEENS TO NASSAU COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Parents of Children in Public Schools Had Standing to Seek Court Review of the SUNY Trustees’ Authorization of Charter Schools—The Authorization Was Not Arbitrary or Capricious or an Abuse of Discretion
APPLICATIONS FOR A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS IN AN AREA OF PROTECTED BEACH VEGETATION PROPERLY DENIED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH VACATING A JUDGMENT STEMMING FROM A CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT MUST ORDINARILY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BRINGING A PLENARY ACTION, A MOTION TO VACATE IS APPROPRIATE WHERE IT IS ALLEGED THE COURT WHICH ENTERED THE JUDGMENT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; HERE THE MOTION TO VACATE WAS THE CORRECT VEHICLE BUT THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING.
DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY TO SCALDING A DISABLED CHILD BY BATHING HER IN WATER THAT WAS TOO HOT, AT THE SUBSEQUENT CIVIL TRIAL DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILD SUFFERED AN ALLERGIC REACTION AND HAD NOT BEEN SCALDED, THE DEFENSE VERDICT WAS AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING THAT THE GUILTY PLEA BE GIVEN COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF THE ALLERGIC REACTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, DESPITE SUPREME COURT’S GRANTING OF THE MOTION, THE DEFENSE VERDICT MAKES ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ERROR UNNECESSARY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Proof Submitted in Reply Papers Not Considered Scientific Expert Opinion Need Not Be Based Upon Textual Authority