Conteh v. Hand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conteh v. Hand

234 A.D.2d 96, 650 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12431

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 96 (Conteh v. Hand) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conteh v. Hand, 234 A.D.2d 96, 650 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered December 12, 1995, in favor of plaintiif in the amount of $142,030.09, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for a new inquest on damages.

Despite its earlier ruling that "[a]ny defenses regarding the measure of damages may be presented at the inquest”, the court, after the completion of plaintiff’s testimony, refused to permit defendants to call a witness at the inquest. It is well settled that by defaulting a defendant admits all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability, but does not admit the plaintiff’s conclusion as to damages. Unless the damages sought are for a sum certain, which can be determined by computation, the defaulting defendant must be given " 'a full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, give testimony and offer proof in mitigation of damages’ ” (Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King, 63 NY2d 728, 730, quoting Reynolds Sec. v Underwriters Bank & Trust Co., 44 NY2d 568, 572). The court’s ruling deprived defendants of such full opportunity. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered December 12, 1995, in favor of plaintiif in the amount of $142,030.09, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for a new inquest on damages.

Despite its earlier ruling that "[a]ny defenses regarding the measure of damages may be presented at the inquest”, the court, after the completion of plaintiff’s testimony, refused to permit defendants to call a witness at the inquest. It is well settled that by defaulting a defendant admits all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability, but does not admit the plaintiff’s conclusion as to damages. Unless the damages sought are for a sum certain, which can be determined by computation, the defaulting defendant must be given " 'a full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, give testimony and offer proof in mitigation of damages’ ” (Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King, 63 NY2d 728, 730, quoting Reynolds Sec. v Underwriters Bank & Trust Co., 44 NY2d 568, 572). The court’s ruling deprived defendants of such full opportunity. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 96, 650 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conteh-v-hand-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack