Manhattan Telecommunications Corp. v. H & A Locksmith, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manhattan Telecommunications Corp. v. H & A Locksmith, Inc.

82 A.D.3d 674, 920 N.Y.2d 74

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 674 (Manhattan Telecommunications Corp. v. H & A Locksmith, Inc.) 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

Manhattan Telecommunications Corp. v. H & A Locksmith, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 674, 920 N.Y.2d 74 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The verified complaint alleged a contract to perform telephone services by plaintiff for defendants for a stated fee, and defendants’ failure to pay. However, the complaint does not allege that appellant was a party to the contract individually, so as to bind him to its terms. “Some proof of liability is . . . required to satisfy the court as to the prima facie validity of. . . uncontested cause of action” (Feffer v Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1994] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Giordano v Berisha, 45 AD3d 416 [2007]; CPLR 3215 [f]), and here plaintiff failed to provide the motion court with evidence that appellant was personally liable for the stated claims. Accordingly, the default judgment was a nullity (see Natradeze v Rubin, 33 AD3d 535 [2006]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

The verified complaint alleged a contract to perform telephone services by plaintiff for defendants for a stated fee, and defendants’ failure to pay. However, the complaint does not allege that appellant was a party to the contract individually, so as to bind him to its terms. “Some proof of liability is . . . required to satisfy the court as to the prima facie validity of. . . uncontested cause of action” (Feffer v Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1994] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Giordano v Berisha, 45 AD3d 416 [2007]; CPLR 3215 [f]), and here plaintiff failed to provide the motion court with evidence that appellant was personally liable for the stated claims. Accordingly, the default judgment was a nullity (see Natradeze v Rubin, 33 AD3d 535 [2006]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 674, 920 N.Y.2d 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manhattan-telecommunications-corp-v-h-a-locksmith-inc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack