In an article published by the New York Law Journal, dated May 29, 2012 (dec.nylj.com/1202555921081), a creditor, Pride Acquisitions made a motion for a summary judgment claiming they made their case based on “breach of contract and account stated.” Pride sought fought summary judgment based on the fact that they were treating a “cease and desist” letter sent to them by the debtor as an answer and demand for discovery. Pride also made their claim based on the fact that the debtor failed to answer a notice to admit. The court decided that the debtor’s letter was not enough to establish an appearance under CPLR 320(a). The court also decided that service of an answer was not “effectuated under §320(a). However, it ruled that as Pride accepted the debtor’s letter as an answer, it would waive “the obvious discrepancies present.” The court also stated that Pride’s claim that the unanswered notice to admit was enough to establish a basis for a summary judgment did not agree with §3212. Therefore, the court denied Pride’s motion for a summary judgment.

We at the law offices of Jayson Lutzky, P.C. are concerned about how the recent challenges in the economy are affecting everyone, especially struggling debtors.  If you are struggling with debt, and you are in need of legal advice, please call us at 800-660-5299 or visit our website at www.MyNewYorkCityLawyer.com for a free initial consultation.