From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andrulis v. Fox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 8, 2001
284 A.D.2d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

June 8, 2001.

(Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. — Dismiss Pleading.)

PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., HAYES, WISNER, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly denied the motions of defendants Judith Knight and Justin Knight and defendant Courtney L. Fox to dismiss the action based upon plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with CPLR 305 (b) by sufficiently stating the nature of the action in the summons. With respect to the summons served upon Fox, the notice required by the statute does not apply because the complaint was served with the summons ( see, Everitt v. Everitt, 4 N.Y.2d 13, 17; 3A Carmody-Wait 2d, N Y Prac § 24:73, at 539). With respect to the identical summons served upon the Knights without the complaint, we conclude that the notice identifying the nature of the action as "tort" is sufficient to comply with the statute ( see generally, Darrow v. Krzys, 261 A.D.2d 778; Bullis v. American Motors Corp., 175 A.D.2d 535, 536).


Summaries of

Andrulis v. Fox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 8, 2001
284 A.D.2d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Andrulis v. Fox

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL J. ANDRULIS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. COURTNEY L. FOX, DEFENDANT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 8, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
727 N.Y.S.2d 367

Citing Cases

Solly v. Pioneer Cent. Sch. Dist.

The summons with notice stated that "[t]he nature of this action is for a tort, leading to bodily injury and…