Fed. Int'l Banking Co. v. Touche
| Decision Date | 13 April 1928 |
| Citation | 162 N.E. 507,248 N.Y. 517 |
| Parties | FEDERAL INTERNATIONAL BANKING Co. v. TOUCHE et al. EQUITABLE TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE v. SAME. ULTRAMARES CORPORATION v. SAME. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Three separate actions by the Federal International Banking Company, by the Equitable Trust Company of Baltimore, and by the Ultramares Corporation, all against George A. Touche and others, copartners under the firm name of Touche, Niven & Co., and others, to recover for the alleged negligence of defendants as public accountants. From orders of the Appellate Division (222 App. Div. 737, 226 N. Y. S. 811; 222 App. Div. 737, 226 N. Y. S. 808; 222 App. Div. 737, 226 N. Y. S. 915), which affirmed orders of the Special Term granting a motion to strike from the answers the affirmative defense of two-year statute of limitation, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
The actions were to recover for the alleged negligence of defendants, as public accountants, in auditing accounts and certifying to an inaccurate balance sheet, in reliance upon which plaintiffs advanced money to their damage.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
James Marshall, Louis Marshall, and Abraham Shamos, all of New York City, for appellants.
Martin Conboy and Edwin N. Moore, both of New York City, for respondent Federal International Banking Co.
H. H. Breland, Emory R. Buckner, and Lowell Turrentine, all of New York City, for respondent Equitable Trust Co. of Baltimore.
Herbert R. Limburg and Lionel S. Popkin, both of New York City, for respondent Ultramares Corporation.
In each action order affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the negative. Held, that section 50, subd. 1, of the Civil Practice Act, in so far as it prescribes a limitation in actions to recover damages for malpractice, refers to actions to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the misconduct of physicians, surgeons, and others practicing a profession similar to those enumerated.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Triangle Underwriters, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.
...Court of Appeals would extend the continuous treatment concept as far as the lower state courts have done. Cf. Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 248 N.Y. 517, 518, 162 N.E. 507 (1928), holding that accounting firms were not subject to the malpractice statute of limitations, which applies only to ......
-
Kambas v. St. Joseph's Mercy Hospital of Detroit, Docket No. 10091
...79 S.D. p. 564, 115 N.W.2d 329; Pfingsten v. Pfingsten (1916), 164 Wis. 308, 320, 159 N.W. 921, 925.14 Federal International Banking Company v. Touche (1928), 248 N.Y. 517, 518, 162 N.W. 507, 508).15 Budoff v. Kessler (2d Dept. N.Y.1954), 284 App.Div. 1049, 130 N.Y.S.2d 717.16 Siegel v. Kra......
-
Johnson v. Haugland
...misconduct of physicians, surgeons, and others practicing a profession similar to those enumerated." Federal International Banking Co. v. Touche, 248 N.Y. 517, 518, 162 N.E. 507, 508 (1928). This rule was applied to cases involving attorneys in Registered Country Home Builders, Inc. v. Steb......
-
DiPietro v. Hecker
...1. Failure to commence the action within three (3) years (Statute of Limitations for malpractice). 2. Release. In Federal Int. Banking Co. v. Touche, 248 N.Y. 517, 162 N.E. 507, the Court of Appeals held that the short statute of limitations (negligence) only applies to malpractice actions ......