From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Millington v. Tesar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 16, 1982
89 A.D.2d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

September 16, 1982


Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Trial Term (Dier, J.), entered March 4, 1982 in Warren County, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff served defendant with a verified complaint bearing an itemized and detailed list of legal services performed by plaintiff for defendant. Defendant's answer bore a general denial. Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to CPLR 3016 (subd [f]), which motion was granted. Where work, labor and services are itemized and the reasonable value or agreed price thereafter are stated in a verified complaint, the defendant must, by his verified answer, indicate specifically those items in dispute. A general denial fails to raise a question of fact and plaintiff is entitled to a judgment on the pleadings ( Duban v Platt, 23 A.D.2d 660, affd 17 N.Y.2d 526). Order affirmed, with costs. Sweeney, J.P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Millington v. Tesar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 16, 1982
89 A.D.2d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Millington v. Tesar

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM W. MILLINGTON, Respondent, v. MILTON J. TESAR, Appellant

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

Date published: Sep 16, 1982

Citations

89 A.D.2d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

United Tire Rubber, Ltd. v. Con. Tire Sales

The defendant is then required, in its answer, to indicate specifically the items it disputes and the aspects…

Summit Security Services, Inc. v. Main Street Lofts Yonkers, LLC

The plaintiff commenced this action by filing a verified complaint pursuant to CPLR 3016 (f) alleging, inter…