Opinion
April 21, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.).
We agree with the IAS Court that defendant was still in default at the time she served her answer since no order had yet been settled vacating her default, as directed in the court's decision dated October 26, 1992; that the answer was therefore a "nullity"; and that plaintiff's time to answer the counterclaims contained in this "purported answer" had therefore not yet begun to run. As for defendant client's motion for summary judgment, her claim that she was not in privity with plaintiff attorneys is undermined by evidentiary proof in her own submissions that she was introduced to one of plaintiff's partners by her attorney of record; that she was told that she would pay $150 an hour for services rendered by such partner, who then performed substantially all of the services rendered on defendant's behalf in the matrimonial action; and that from 1988 the attorney of record rendered no services in the matrimonial action. In short, defendant's submissions raise rather than dispose of issues of fact. We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.