Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Continental Casualty Co. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


December 30, 2008

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
EAGLE PARTNERS, L.P., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
JEREMY M. JONES, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered January 7, 2008, dismissing the actions pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered November 9, 2007, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from above order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the consolidated appeal from the judgments.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Nardelli, Buckley, Acosta, JJ.

120016/03, 121132/03 & 602962/03

Even if plaintiff limited partners' claims of fraudulent inducement are sufficient, as a legal matter, to support a direct claim against the partnership's auditor (see e.g. Kaufmann v Delafield, 224 App Div 29 [1928]), they failed to submit evidence to raise an issue of fact in opposition to defendant's prima facie showing that the damages claimed all emanated from losses that took place after the initial investment, did not affect plaintiffs differently from other limited partners, and were therefore derivative (see generally Abrams v Donati, 66 NY2d 951 [1985]; see also Gentile v Rossette, 906 A2d 91, 99 [Del 2006] [claims of corporate overpayment]).

In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address appellants' other contentions.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20081230

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.