Everett v. Everett

New York Supreme Court

Everett v. Everett

150 Misc. 609, 269 N.Y.S. 833, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1790

DecidedDecember 6, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 150 Misc. 609 (Everett v. Everett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Everett v. Everett, 150 Misc. 609, 269 N.Y.S. 833, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1790 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Callahan, J.

In this case the plaintiff’s attorney, after negotiations with the attorneys who subsequently appeared for the defendant, mailed to said attorneys a copy of the summons and complaint herein. Such mailing would have had no effect if the defendant’s attorneys had not seen fit to voluntarily appear. When they did appear they might have served a demand for a complaint (Civ. Prac. Act, § 257), ignoring the complaint previously received. In the law their notice of appearance was equivalent only to the service of the summons on their client as of the date of appearance. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 237.) The fact that the notice of appearance served herein expressly stated that the papers demanded were all papers other than the summons and complaint indicated that defendant’s attorneys accepted the complaint previously received but only as of the date of appearance. Defendant, therefore, had twenty days from said date to answer and this motion was timely made. The circumstances seem to warrant change of venue. Motion granted. Settle order.

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

Callahan, J.

In this case the plaintiff’s attorney, after negotiations with the attorneys who subsequently appeared for the defendant, mailed to said attorneys a copy of the summons and complaint herein. Such mailing would have had no effect if the defendant’s attorneys had not seen fit to voluntarily appear. When they did appear they might have served a demand for a complaint (Civ. Prac. Act, § 257), ignoring the complaint previously received. In the law their notice of appearance was equivalent only to the service of the summons on their client as of the date of appearance. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 237.) The fact that the notice of appearance served herein expressly stated that the papers demanded were all papers other than the summons and complaint indicated that defendant’s attorneys accepted the complaint previously received but only as of the date of appearance. Defendant, therefore, had twenty days from said date to answer and this motion was timely made. The circumstances seem to warrant change of venue. Motion granted. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 Misc. 609, 269 N.Y.S. 833, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-v-everett-nysupct-1933.