Stephan B. Gleich & Associates v. Gritsipis

Louis Gritsipis (plaintiff) retained law firm Stephan B. Gleich & Associates (Gleich) in connection with a landlord-tenant matter. In 1993, Gleich sued Gritsipis, alleging that Gritsipis had not paid certain legal fees and disbursements. Gleich’s notice with summons did not allege the existence of a written retainer agreement or attach a retainer agreement. Gleich described its claim as seeking to recover for legal services and unjust enrichment; Gleich did not expressly assert a breach-of-contract claim. Gritsipis neither appeared in nor answered Gleich’s suit, leading the court clerk to enter a default judgment against Gritsipis in 1994. In 2009, Gleich sued Gritsipis to collect on the unpaid 1994 default judgment. Gritsipis answered Gleich’s 2009 complaint, asserting that he was not properly served in the 1993 action and that the court thus did not have jurisdiction to enter a default judgment against him. The supreme court ruled that Gritsipis was properly served in 1993 and that the court thus had jurisdiction to enter the default judgment. Gritispis appealed. In addition to renewing his improper-service argument, Gritsipis contended for the first time that the clerk improperly entered the 1994 default judgment because Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 3215(a) limited a clerk’s power to enter a default judgment to a claim for a sum certain or for a sum that could by computation be made certain. Per Gritsipis, § 3215(a) was not met because Gleich’s 1993 summons with notice could be interpreted to assert equitable claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, and such equitable claims were not for a sum certain or for a sum that could be made certain by computation. Thus, Gritsipis contended, the clerk’s entry of a default judgment against him pursuant to § 3215(a) was invalid.