Silverman v. Scharf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silverman v. Scharf

74 A.D.2d 822, 425 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10567

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.2d 822 (Silverman v. Scharf) 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

Silverman v. Scharf, 74 A.D.2d 822, 425 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for dental malpractice, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 5, 1979, as denied their motion to strike the second affirmative defense in defendants’ answer. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and plaintiffs’ motion to strike the second affirmative defense granted. The default notice required by CPLR 305 (subd [b]) to accompany a summons served without a complaint does not limit the amount which may be demanded in the complaint once the defendant appears in the action (Everitt v Everitt, 4 NY2d 13). Therefore, Special Term erred in holding that the complaint, served after defendants’ appearance, could demand no greater monetary damages than the sum stated in the original summons with notice. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for dental malpractice, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 5, 1979, as denied their motion to strike the second affirmative defense in defendants’ answer. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and plaintiffs’ motion to strike the second affirmative defense granted. The default notice required by CPLR 305 (subd [b]) to accompany a summons served without a complaint does not limit the amount which may be demanded in the complaint once the defendant appears in the action (Everitt v Everitt, 4 NY2d 13). Therefore, Special Term erred in holding that the complaint, served after defendants’ appearance, could demand no greater monetary damages than the sum stated in the original summons with notice. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 822, 425 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverman-v-scharf-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack