Miller v Cambria Car Wash, LLC

Miller v Cambria Car Wash, LLC 2009 NY Slip Op 09195 [68 AD3d 827] December 8, 2009 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Milton Miller, Appellant,
v
Cambria Car Wash, LLC, Respondent.

—[*1] Jeffrey L. Goldberg, P.C., Lake Success, N.Y. (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel J. Sweeney & Associates PLLC, White Plains, N.Y. (Susan M. Daly of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated September 4, 2008, as granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 305 (b).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is denied.

CPLR 305 (b) provides, in relevant part, that when a summons is served without a complaint, the summons shall contain "a notice stating the nature of the action and the relief sought." Here, the plaintiff's summons contained the following notice: "The nature of this action is to recover money damages for negligence; negligence per se. The relief sought is $25 Million Dollars in damages."

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court and the defendant's contentions, the language in this summons complied with the statutory requirements, and adequately apprised the defendant of the nature of the action and the relief sought (see Grace v Bay Crane Serv. of Long Is., Inc., 12 AD3d 566 [2004]; Darrow v Krzys, 261 AD2d 778 [1999]; Fitzpatrick v Slagowitz, 201 AD2d 614 [1994]; Rowell v Gould, Inc., 124 AD2d 995 [1986]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.