From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nordheimer v. McMorrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 22, 1991
176 A.D.2d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

October 22, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly S. Cohen, J.).


In the main action, plaintiffs were represented by defendant third-party plaintiff as attorney in the purchase of a lease from third-party defendants. Although a written assurance was given by the third-party defendants that the property was free from tax liability, an audit thereafter determined that third-party defendants had failed to pay sales and use taxes. It was further determined that the transaction was a bulk sale and that the failure to notify the Tax Commissioner of the proposed sale rendered plaintiffs personally liable for the debt (Tax Law § 1141 [c]). Plaintiffs commenced this action against defendant for malpractice and defendant impleaded third-party defendants, alleging negligence, breach of contract and fraud. The third-party defendants moved for summary judgment and the IAS court found only the cause of action for fraud to be viable.

The proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged injuries was not the failure of the third-party defendant to pay the taxes, but rather the defendant attorney's failure to notify the Tax Commission of the bulk sale as required by law (see, Harcel Liqs. v. Evsam Parking, 48 N.Y.2d 503). Further, plaintiffs' malpractice action against defendant alleges a separate and distinct injury caused solely by the attorney's failure to protect plaintiffs' legal rights (see, Jakobleff v. Cerrato, Sweeney Cohn, 97 A.D.2d 786). The court thus properly dismissed the negligence action. Further, as there is no privity between the defendant attorney and the third-party defendants, no cause of action in contract lies. However, a cause of action for fraud was sufficiently pleaded (Lanzi v. Brooks, 54 A.D.2d 1057, 1058, affd 43 N.Y.2d 778, mot to amend remittitur granted 43 N.Y.2d 947), and the court properly ordered discovery on that issue.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ellerin, Kassal and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Nordheimer v. McMorrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 22, 1991
176 A.D.2d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Nordheimer v. McMorrow

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY NORDHEIMER et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES F. McMORROW, Defendant…

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

Date published: Oct 22, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
575 N.Y.S.2d 43

Citing Cases

Mission Cantina v. Pan Asian Bistro Les, Inc.

Thus, providing safe harbor to any purchaser in a bulk sale, Tax Law § 1141 ( c) placed squarely upon Buyer…

Edouard v. Ginsberg Broome

Pursuant to CPLR 1401, "two or more persons who are subject to liability for damages for the same personal…