Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
EQUITABLE FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Karen CHANTI, Alfina Chanti et al., Defendants.
Karen Chanti, Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Mark Goldstein et al., Third–Party Defendants–Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joel M. Cohen, J.), entered June 2, 2022, which granted third-party defendants Mark Goldstein and Mark Goldstein Associates, LLC's (defendants) motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion with respect to the first cause of action for negligence and the third cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly determined that defendants — insofar as they were acting as an insurance agent on behalf of the insured in notifying third-party plaintiff (plaintiff), pursuant to the documentation provided by the insurer, that she was a direct beneficiary of the insurance policy, and in assisting in the preparation of the claim form — did not, as a matter of law, owe plaintiff any relevant duties concerning the validity of her status as a beneficiary.
However, plaintiff adequately alleges that defendants owed her a direct and/or special duty of care when, after she received the insurance proceeds, Goldstein, while acting in his capacity as her principal financial advisor, informed her of unspecified complaints concerning the insurance policy and assured her, based on his superior and specialized knowledge, that she need not be concerned because there was no merit to those complaints. These allegations sufficiently state the elements of a negligence claim and of a negligent misrepresentation claim (see Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027, 499 N.Y.S.2d 392, 489 N.E.2d 1294 [1985]; see also generally Kimmell v. Schaefer, 89 N.Y.2d 257, 264, 652 N.Y.S.2d 715, 675 N.E.2d 450 [1996]; Ossining Union Free School Dist. v. Anderson LaRocca Anderson, 73 N.Y.2d 417, 424–426, 541 N.Y.S.2d 335, 539 N.E.2d 91 [1989]).
Plaintiff does not adequately allege a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Even if such a claim can be premised on the breach of the type of duties that might arise between a financial advisor and client, plaintiff's complaint otherwise fails to state a cause of action because “[e]motional injury is generally compensable only when it is the direct, rather than consequential, result of the breach of a duty owed” (Brown v. New York Design Ctr., Inc., 215 A.D.3d 1, 5, 185 N.Y.S.3d 97 [1st Dept. 2023]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 980
Decided: November 09, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)