Bestcraft General Contractors, Inc. v. Scifo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bestcraft General Contractors, Inc. v. Scifo

85 A.D.2d 588, 444 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16386

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 85 A.D.2d 588 (Bestcraft General Contractors, Inc. v. Scifo) 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

Bestcraft General Contractors, Inc. v. Scifo, 85 A.D.2d 588, 444 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover, inter alia, for work, labor and services performed, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kelly, J.), dated February 4, 1981, which denied its motion to, inter alia, open its default at a Special Term hearing held November 24, 1980 to determine the issue of personal jurisdiction. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. It is ultimately plaintiff’s duty to determine when he must appear in court. Miscommunication between court personnel and counsel may, in some instances, be sufficient excuse for failing to appear when scheduled. In this case, however, plaintiff’s attorney had received a court order and a note of issue scheduling the hearing in question for November 24, 1980. Hence, the subsequent allegedly contrary information received from the court clerk as to when the matter would be heard should have put the attorney on notice that further investigation was necessary. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover, inter alia, for work, labor and services performed, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kelly, J.), dated February 4, 1981, which denied its motion to, inter alia, open its default at a Special Term hearing held November 24, 1980 to determine the issue of personal jurisdiction. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. It is ultimately plaintiff’s duty to determine when he must appear in court. Miscommunication between court personnel and counsel may, in some instances, be sufficient excuse for failing to appear when scheduled. In this case, however, plaintiff’s attorney had received a court order and a note of issue scheduling the hearing in question for November 24, 1980. Hence, the subsequent allegedly contrary information received from the court clerk as to when the matter would be heard should have put the attorney on notice that further investigation was necessary. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.2d 588, 444 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bestcraft-general-contractors-inc-v-scifo-nyappdiv-1981.