Legal Opinion

Schoonmaker v. Ford Motor Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 28, 1979PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

John T. Casey, J.

• The above-entitled action was commenced by the service of a bare summons containing a notice that the object of the action was "wrongful death, conscious pain and suffering and loss of services” and "the relief sought was monetary damages in the amount of $10,000,000.”

The notice in the summons does not comply with the 1978 amendment of CPLR 305 (subd [b]) requiring such notice to state the nature of the action and the relief demanded; and if a default occurred and judgment was entered thereon, that judgment would be jurisdictionally defective and subject…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. McDermott v. HoenigAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1969

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bal v. Court Employment Project, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
  2. Nuez v. DiazNew York Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Schoonmaker v. Ford Motor Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
  4. Parker v. MackNew York Court of Appeals · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API