Benson v. Manning

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Benson v. Manning

20 A.D.2d 547, 245 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2761

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 9, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 547 (Benson v. Manning) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benson v. Manning, 20 A.D.2d 547, 245 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by an attorney against a former client to recover the agreed price and reasonable value of legal services rendered by plaintiff to defendant, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 12, 1963 (erroneously designated as a “judgment” in the notice of appeal), which granted, conditionally, defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of said court entered January 9, 1963 in plaintiff’s favor against defendant on his alleged default in appearing or answering. The conditions imposed by the order inter alia required “ that defendant shall furnish an undertaking * G * as security for the satisfaction of any judgment which might be obtained by plaintiff in this action.” It appears that on March 12, 1963 the court also made a second order granting defendant’s motion for reargument but adhering substantially to the original disposition. This order has been considered by the court, pursuant to statute (CPLR 5517). Original order and order made on reargument reversed, without costs, and motion to vacate the judgment granted upon the condition that, pending the determination of this action, the existing judgment shall remain on record as a lien and as security for any recovery which may be had by the plaintiff herein. Defendant’s time to serve his answer is extended until 20 days after plaintiff shall have served a copy of the complaint upon him. If defendant has already received a copy of the complaint, then defendant’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. Concededly, defendant’s attorney duly mailed a notice of appearance to plaintiff and was not responsible for its nonreceipt by plaintiff. In the circumstances, defendant was not actually in default. (Saffold v. Fellows, 219 App. Div. 865.) Consequently, defendant was entitled to vacatur of the judgment as of right, without imposing as a condition the filing of a bond (Shenstone v. Wilson, 117 App. Div. 752, 753; Gallagher v. Tantalo, 10 Misc 2d 1029, 1031; Cohen v. Meryash, 93 N. Y. S. 529). However, the existing judgment should remain as security for any recovery herein by the plaintiff (cf. Pacific Northern Fence Corp. v. Allied Fabricators, 19 A D 2d 541). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action by an attorney against a former client to recover the agreed price and reasonable value of legal services rendered by plaintiff to defendant, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 12, 1963 (erroneously designated as a “judgment” in the notice of appeal), which granted, conditionally, defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of said court entered January 9, 1963 in plaintiff’s favor against defendant on his alleged default in appearing or answering. The conditions imposed by the order inter alia required “ that defendant shall furnish an undertaking * G * as security for the satisfaction of any judgment which might be obtained by plaintiff in this action.” It appears that on March 12, 1963 the court also made a second order granting defendant’s motion for reargument but adhering substantially to the original disposition. This order has been considered by the court, pursuant to statute (CPLR 5517). Original order and order made on reargument reversed, without costs, and motion to vacate the judgment granted upon the condition that, pending the determination of this action, the existing judgment shall remain on record as a lien and as security for any recovery which may be had by the plaintiff herein. Defendant’s time to serve his answer is extended until 20 days after plaintiff shall have served a copy of the complaint upon him. If defendant has already received a copy of the complaint, then defendant’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. Concededly, defendant’s attorney duly mailed a notice of appearance to plaintiff and was not responsible for its nonreceipt by plaintiff. In the circumstances, defendant was not actually in default. (Saffold v. Fellows, 219 App. Div. 865.) Consequently, defendant was entitled to vacatur of the judgment as of right, without imposing as a condition the filing of a bond (Shenstone v. Wilson, 117 App. Div. 752, 753; Gallagher v. Tantalo, 10 Misc 2d 1029, 1031; Cohen v. Meryash, 93 N. Y. S. 529). However, the existing judgment should remain as security for any recovery herein by the plaintiff (cf. Pacific Northern Fence Corp. v. Allied Fabricators, 19 A D 2d 541). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 547, 245 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benson-v-manning-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack