Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982

Millington v. Tesar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided September 16, 1982

89 A.D.2d 1037; 454 N.Y.S.2d 349; 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18306

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

ANDERSON & ANDERSON, LLP-GUANGZHOU v. INCREDIBLE INVESTMENTS LIMITED (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Anderson & Anderson, LLP-Guangzhou v. Incredible Investments Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Anderson & Anderson, LLP-Guangzhou v. Incredible Investments Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Summit Security Services, Inc. v. Main Street Lofts Yonkers, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Phillips Nizer Benjamin Krim & Ballon, L. L. P. v. Chu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Cibro Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Onondaga Oil Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
United Tire & Rubber Co. v. Contractor Tire Sales, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
County Excavation, Inc. v. Middleton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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 AD2d 660, affd 17 NY2d 526). Order affirmed, with costs. Sweeney, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.