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.
Adriana BITTER, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Louis N. RENZO, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Ronkonkoma Operations LLC, et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered April 16, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Charles Raich's motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and granted defendant Louis N. Renzo's motion to dismiss the aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The duty owed by an accountant to a client is generally not fiduciary in nature (Able Energy, Inc. v. Marcum & Kliegman LLP, 69 AD3d 443, 444 [1st Dept 2010]; DG Liquidation v. Anchin, Block & Anchin, 300 A.D.2d 70, 70–71 [1st Dept 2002] ). Nor does a conventional business relationship, without more, create a fiduciary relationship (Friedman v. Anderson, 23 AD3d 163, 166 [1st Dept 2005] ).
Here, plaintiffs alleged only that Raich agreed to provide accounting and consulting services for Scalamandre, the company in which plaintiffs held a financial interest, and its board of directors. This does not suffice to allege that Raich owed plaintiffs a fiduciary duty. In light of the insufficient allegations of any fiduciary duty owed by Raich, the trial court also correctly dismissed the claim of aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty (see Kaufman v. Cohen, 307 A.D.2d 113, 125 [1st Dept 2003] ).
To the extent that plaintiffs argue on appeal that defendant Raich owed plaintiffs a fiduciary duty, not as an accountant or advisor, but as a “business broker,” our review of the record reveals that this theory of liability was not articulated in the complaint or in plaintiffs' papers opposing dismissal. Accordingly, we decline to consider this claim (see e.g. Sonnenschein v. Douglas Elliman–Gibbons & Ives, 96 N.Y.2d 369, 376–377 [2001]; Recovery Consultants v. Shih–Hsieh, 141 A.D.2d 272, 276 [1st Dept 1988] ).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 11, 2012
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)