Iacurci v. Sax

Summary

The dissent would reverse the summary judgment entered for the defendants because the plaintiff presented uncontradicted evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a fiduciary relationship existed. It would hold that the defendants, rather than the plaintiff, bore the initial burden on summary judgment to negate the claim and that the fiduciary-relationship question should be decided by a jury under the totality of the circumstances. Justice Eveleigh, dissenting, would have rejected the majority's conclusion that a tax preparer could not owe a fiduciary duty absent investment advice.