Scaringi v. Elizabeth Broome Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scaringi v. Elizabeth Broome Realty Corp.

191 A.D.2d 223, 594 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2208

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 223 (Scaringi v. Elizabeth Broome Realty Corp.) 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

Scaringi v. Elizabeth Broome Realty Corp., 191 A.D.2d 223, 594 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered November 26, 1991, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly concluded that no cause of action for negligence was commenced. When a summons is served without a complaint pursuant to CPLR 305 (b), it is imperative that " ' "at least basic information concerning the nature of plaintiffs claim and the relief sought” ’ ” be provided (Matter of Hart Is. Comm. v Koch, 150 AD2d 269, 271, lv denied 75 NY2d 705). Here, defendants could not reasonably have been expected to ascertain the nature of the action from plaintiffs mere description of same as "Premises”. That term does not denote a recognizable cause of action (cf., Rowell v Gould, Inc., 124 AD2d 995, 996), and could well encompass any number of potential causes of action. Since the action was terminated for failure to obtain personal jurisdiction, plaintiff may not obtain a six-month extension of time for re-commencing the action (Parker v Mack, 61 NY2d 114). Finally, since it is not disputed that the same deficient summons with notice was served on the non-answering defendant Elizabeth Broome [224]*224Realty Corp., the trial court properly dismissed the action, sua sponte, as to that defendant. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ. [See, 154 Misc 2d 786.]

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered November 26, 1991, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly concluded that no cause of action for negligence was commenced. When a summons is served without a complaint pursuant to CPLR 305 (b), it is imperative that " ' "at least basic information concerning the nature of plaintiffs claim and the relief sought” ’ ” be provided (Matter of Hart Is. Comm. v Koch, 150 AD2d 269, 271, lv denied 75 NY2d 705). Here, defendants could not reasonably have been expected to ascertain the nature of the action from plaintiffs mere description of same as "Premises”. That term does not denote a recognizable cause of action (cf., Rowell v Gould, Inc., 124 AD2d 995, 996), and could well encompass any number of potential causes of action. Since the action was terminated for failure to obtain personal jurisdiction, plaintiff may not obtain a six-month extension of time for re-commencing the action (Parker v Mack, 61 NY2d 114). Finally, since it is not disputed that the same deficient summons with notice was served on the non-answering defendant Elizabeth Broome [224]*224Realty Corp., the trial court properly dismissed the action, sua sponte, as to that defendant. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ. [See, 154 Misc 2d 786.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 223, 594 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scaringi-v-elizabeth-broome-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack