Privity is the relationship between professional and client.  Here in this case, Dinerstein v Anchin, Block & Anchin, LLP , 2007 NY Slip Op 05143 Decided on June 12, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department , the court discusses the outside limits of privity.  For these accountants, the court holds that it was reasonable to expect plaintiff to rely upon their accounting.  So…they are kept in the case.

"Although plaintiff, a stockholder and director of Medi-Bill, was not a party to the engagement letters by which Medi-Bill retained defendant to audit its financial statements, his relationship with defendant sufficiently approached privity to sustain his accounting malpractice claim as against defendant’s contention that the claim must fail for lack of contractual privity (see Credit Alliance Corp. v Arthur Anderson & Co., 65 NY2d 536 [1985]). Defendant admits it knew that its audit reports, which were addressed to "the Stockholders and Directors of Medi-Bill," were to be used by Medi-Bill’s stockholder and directors for the particular purpose of "managing and overseeing" Medi-Bill’s business, but denies knowing that plaintiff would be extending a full personal guaranty for Medi-Bill’s outstanding loan to the bank."