Skidmore v. Carr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skidmore v. Carr

89 A.D.2d 600, 452 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17687

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

DecidedJuly 19, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 89 A.D.2d 600 (Skidmore v. Carr) 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

Skidmore v. Carr, 89 A.D.2d 600, 452 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action predicated on contract to recover for professional services rendered to the defendants, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered November 10, 1981, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants Michael Carr, Robert Carucci and Analog Research Development Corp. to vacate the default judgment which had been entered against them on February 7, 1979. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Under the circumstances of the instant case, the service of a summons upon [601]*601the respondents bearing the notation “For legal services — $9,526.90” constituted the service of a “Summons and notice” as required by CPLR 305 (subd [b]) “stating the nature of the action [i.e., for legal services rendered] and the relief sought [monetary damages], and * * * the sum of money for which judgment may be taken in case of default [$9,526.90].” As the balance of the proof submitted on the application before the court for the entry of the default judgment fully complied with the statutory prerequisites set forth in CPLR 3215, as well as the additional notice requirements set forth in CPLR 308 (as amd by L 1977, ch 344), it was improper for Special Term to have granted respondents’ motion. Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Bracken and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action predicated on contract to recover for professional services rendered to the defendants, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered November 10, 1981, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants Michael Carr, Robert Carucci and Analog Research Development Corp. to vacate the default judgment which had been entered against them on February 7, 1979. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Under the circumstances of the instant case, the service of a summons upon [601]*601the respondents bearing the notation “For legal services — $9,526.90” constituted the service of a “Summons and notice” as required by CPLR 305 (subd [b]) “stating the nature of the action [i.e., for legal services rendered] and the relief sought [monetary damages], and * * * the sum of money for which judgment may be taken in case of default [$9,526.90].” As the balance of the proof submitted on the application before the court for the entry of the default judgment fully complied with the statutory prerequisites set forth in CPLR 3215, as well as the additional notice requirements set forth in CPLR 308 (as amd by L 1977, ch 344), it was improper for Special Term to have granted respondents’ motion. Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Bracken and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 600, 452 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skidmore-v-carr-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack