RKB Enterprises Inc. v. Ernst & Young
Decision Date | 09 April 1992 |
Citation | 182 A.D.2d 971,582 N.Y.S.2d 814 |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Parties | RKB ENTERPRISES INC., Appellant, v. ERNST & YOUNG et al., Respondents. |
Sayles, Evans, Brayton, Palmer & Tifft (Edward B. Hoffman, of counsel), Elmira, for appellant.
Ernst & Young (Linda M. Howard, of counsel), New York City, for Ernst & Young, respondent.
Davidson & O'Mara, P.C. (John F. O'Mara, of counsel), Elmira, for System Software Associates Inc., respondent.
Before WEISS, P.J., MIKOLL, YESAWICH and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.), entered July 19, 1991 in Chemung County, which granted defendants' motions to dismiss certain causes of action of the amended complaint.
Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant Ernst & Young, formerly Ernst & Whinney (hereinafter E & W), to perform computer consulting services in connection with plaintiff's procurement of a new data processing system. E & W analyzed plaintiff's needs, drafted specifications, sought contract proposals from various vendors and recommended the proposal submitted by defendant System Software Associates, Inc. (hereinafter SSA). Plaintiff entered into a series of contracts with SSA for the purchase of computer hardware, licensing of a computer software program and adaptation of the software to meet plaintiff's specific needs. Plaintiff also entered into a contract with E & W in which E & W agreed to help oversee and assist in the implementation of the new data processing system.
After experiencing extensive cost increases and delays resulting from difficulties adapting the computer program and system to its business, plaintiff commenced this action against E & W and SSA alleging breach of contract against both defendants, negligent and reckless rendition of professional computer consulting services (malpractice) by E & W, and negligent, careless and reckless misrepresentation and deliberate fraud against both defendants. Plaintiff also sought punitive damages as part of its fraud cause of action. Defendants separately moved to dismiss all causes of action in the complaint, with the exception of the pure breach of contract claims, for failure to state causes of action. Supreme Court granted the motions on the grounds that plaintiff's claims were essentially varied restatements of its cause of action for breach of contract and did not constitute distinctly separate causes of action, and that punitive damages were not recoverable here. Plaintiff has appealed.
While conceding that a simple breach of contract does not give rise to separate tort claims, plaintiff contends that its allegations of professional malpractice, negligent misrepresentation and fraud are based upon breaches of legal duties extraneous to and distinct from the contract. Initially, it should be noted that there is no cause of action for professional malpractice in the field of computer consulting (see, Chatlos Sys. v. National Cash Register Corp., 479 F.Supp. 738, 741 n. 2, affd. in part, remanded in part 3d Cir., 635 F.2d 1081). While computers are relatively new equipment of a complex technical nature critically important to business, we decline to create a new tort applicable to the computer industry. Nor does the fact that E & W was the certified public accountant firm engaged by plaintiff during the same period add a dimension to the computer or management consulting services separate from the subject of plaintiff's breach of contract claim (see, Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 389-390, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 516 N.E.2d 190). A conventional business relationship does not create a fiduciary relationship in the absence of additional factors, none of which have here been alleged (see, Feigen v. Advance Capital Mgt. Corp., 150 A.D.2d 281, 283, 541 N.Y.S.2d 797, lv. dismissed, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 874, 547 N.Y.S.2d 840, 547 N.E.2d 95).
This same lack of a separate relationship distinct from and independent of the contract precludes a claim of negligent misrepresentation (see, Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R.R. Co., supra, 70 N.Y.2d at 389, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 516 N.E.2d 190; Rich v. New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R.R. Co., 87 N.Y. 382, 398; see also, Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. v. Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley, 146 A.D.2d 190, 199, 539 N.Y.S.2d 814, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 702, 551 N.Y.S.2d 906, 551 N.E.2d 107). The allegations of negligence in the complaint merely parallel the breach of contract claim.
Plaintiff's allegations of intentional fraud, however, while also parallel in many respects to the breach of contract claim, do include charges of fraud in the inducement by misrepresentation of a present fact (see, Deerfield Communications Corp. v. Chesebrough-Ponds Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 954, 510 N.Y.S.2d 88, 502 N.E.2d 1003) and thus are not merely redundant of the breach of contract claim (cf., Trusthouse Forte [Garden City] Mgt. v. Garden City Hotel, 106 A.D.2d 271, 272, 483 N.Y.S.2d 216). A...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capital Dist. Physician's Health Plan v. O'HIGGINS
...is true that New York law requires a duty distinct from that created by the contract, see, e.g., RKB Enterprises, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, 182 A.D.2d 971, 972, 582 N.Y.S.2d 814 (N.Y.App.Div.1992), plaintiff has in fact alleged that O'Higgins negligently breached a distinct duty in his managem......
-
Dornberger v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
...which was violated through the use of misrepresentations to induce Plaintiff to purchase policies. See RKB Enters., Inc. v. Ernst & Young, 182 A.D.2d 971, 582 N.Y.S.2d 814, 816 (1992) (indicating that a negligent misrepresentation claim would lie between contracting parties if plaintiff all......
-
Capax Discovery, Inc. v. AEP RSD Investors, LLC
...them to sign the Agreement, their presence in the Agreement does not negate a fraud claim. See RKB Enters. Inc. v. Ernst & Young , 182 A.D.2d 971, 582 N.Y.S.2d 814, 816 (N.Y. 1992) ("A party fraudulently induced to enter into a contract may join a cause of action for fraud with one for brea......
-
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc.
...contract is separate and distinct from a breach of contract claim under New York law. Id.; see also RKB Enters., Inc. v. Ernst & Young, 182 A.D.2d 971, 582 N.Y.S.2d 814, 816 (3d Dep't 1992) ("A party fraudulently induced to enter into a contract may join a cause of action for fraud with one......
-
§ 19.03 Escalations
...Electric Supply Co. v. Pyramid Champlain Co., 193 A.D.2d 928, 597 N.Y.S.2d 811 (1993).[172] RKB Enterprises, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, 182 A.D.2d 971, 582 N.Y.S.2d 814 (1992).[173] Quail Ridge Associates v Chemical Bank, 162 A.D.2d 917, 921, 558 N.Y.S.2d 655, 658 (1990), appeal dismissed 76 N.......
-
Chapter 28 RESCISSION
...Dev., 311 F. Supp. 2d 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).[4578] Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., 500 F.3d at 184, quoting RKB Enters., Inc. v. Ernst & Young, 182 A.D.2d 971, 582 N.Y.S.2d 814 (3d Dep't 1992).[4579] Quanzhou Joerga Fashion Co., Ltd. v. Brooks Fitch Apparel Group, LLC, 2011 WL 4063344, at *7 (S.D.N......
-
Who pays the price of computer software failure?
...them was unwarranted. See id. (170.) See In re Accounting of Lincoln Rochester Trust Co., 355 N.Y.S.2d 336, 339 (1974) (171.) Id. (172.) 582 N.Y.S.2d 814 (App. Div. (173.) RKB Enter, 582 N.Y.2d at 816. Daniel T. Perlman, J.D. Candidate 1998, Rutgers School of Law -- Newark