From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Darrow v. Krzys

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 13, 1999
261 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

finding that the plaintiffs' summons with notice, which stated that the nature of the action was, inter alia, "negligence of defendant resulting in personal injury and loss of spousal services . . . provided the necessary basic information and complied with CPLR 305(b)," and noting that " liberal construction of the statutory requirement of the contents of the notice accompanying a summons served without a complaint is consistent with the general notice sufficient to comply with C.P.L.R. 305(b), even though it was more cryptic than we would desire" (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)

Summary of this case from Kane v. City of Ithaca

Opinion

May 13, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court (Best, J.).


The only issue on this appeal is whether plaintiffs' summons with notice, which stated that the nature of the action is "negligence of [d]efendant resulting in personal injury and loss of spousal services" and specified the dollar amount of the damages to be recovered, complies with the notice requirement of CPLR 305 (b). "A liberal construction of the statutory requirement of the contents of the notice accompanying a summons served without a complaint is consistent with the general policy of the CPLR" ( Bullis v. American Motors Corp., 175 A.D.2d 535, 536). Thus, we have found a notice sufficient to comply with CPLR 305 (b) even though it was "more cryptic than we would desire" ( Town of Esopus v. Simoes Assocs., 145 A.D.2d 840, 841). "Absolute precision is not necessary" ( Clark v. City of Ithaca, 235 A.D.2d 746, 748) if the notice provides the defendant with "'"basic information concerning the nature of [the] plaintiff's claim and the relief sought"'" ( Viscosi v. Merritt, 125 A.D.2d 814). We conclude that the notice in this case provided the necessary basic information and complied with CPLR 305 (b) ( compare, Pilla v. La Flor De Mayo Express, 191 A.D.2d 224; Rowell v. Gould, Inc., 124 A.D.2d 995, with Scaringi v. Broome Realty Corp., 191 A.D.2d 223).

Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Darrow v. Krzys

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 13, 1999
261 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

finding that the plaintiffs' summons with notice, which stated that the nature of the action was, inter alia, "negligence of defendant resulting in personal injury and loss of spousal services . . . provided the necessary basic information and complied with CPLR 305(b)," and noting that " liberal construction of the statutory requirement of the contents of the notice accompanying a summons served without a complaint is consistent with the general notice sufficient to comply with C.P.L.R. 305(b), even though it was more cryptic than we would desire" (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)

Summary of this case from Kane v. City of Ithaca
Case details for

Darrow v. Krzys

Case Details

Full title:DOUGLAS DARROW et al., Respondents, v. ROBERT J. KRZYS, Appellant

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

Date published: May 13, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 773

Citing Cases

Miller v. Car Wash

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court and the defendant's contentions, the language in this…

MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Royal Bank of Canada

New York has liberal pleading rules, especially for a summons with notice, which require that a plaintiff…