Murashkovsky v. ADAMO d.o.o.

Civil Practice

New York Law Journal


Justice Barbara Kapnick

Murashkovsky sued to recover money allegedly due her from defendants for her work regarding production of an art catalog. She claimed she expected $35,000 that defendants agreed to pay. Adamovic moved to vacate his default judgment seeking to renew and reargue the prior decision stating there was new evidence not previously available. Defendants claimed plaintiff was fully compensated, producing receipts for $12,500. They also disputed the actual scope of plaintiff's work claiming she did not meet her deadlines and her texts were not of the caliber expected. Defendants moved to dismiss based on the receipts allegedly documenting that plaintiff was paid $12,500, noting the scope of her work was limited to that amount. The court ruled it did not overlook or misapprehend the receipts, noting as plaintiff disputed defendant's interpretation of the facts, the case was sent out for an evidentiary hearing. It also noted none of the statements submitted by defendants were properly sworn, nor did they have any relevance on the motion to vacate the judgment. It ruled defendant failed to offer any reason why the submissions were not obtained and remitted on the prior motion, and denied the motion.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202587239980

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.