Gatz v. Layburn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gatz v. Layburn

95 A.D.3d 1276, 944 N.Y.S.2d 918

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

DecidedMay 30, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 95 A.D.3d 1276 (Gatz v. Layburn) 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

Gatz v. Layburn, 95 A.D.3d 1276, 944 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for assault and battery, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated July 2, 2010, which, upon the granting of his motion for leave to enter a judgment in his favor on the issue of liability upon the defendant’s default in appearing or answering, and after an inquest on the issue of damages, determined that the defendant owed no damages to him and directed dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CELR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish his entitlement to damages (cf. Rodriguez v Valentine, 20 AD3d 558, 559 [2005]; Laurie Marie M. v Jeffrey T.M., 159 AD2d 52, 55-56 [1990], affd 77 NY2d 981 [1991]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to an award of damages, and properly directed dismissal of the complaint. Mastro, A.EJ., Florio, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for assault and battery, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated July 2, 2010, which, upon the granting of his motion for leave to enter a judgment in his favor on the issue of liability upon the defendant’s default in appearing or answering, and after an inquest on the issue of damages, determined that the defendant owed no damages to him and directed dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CELR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish his entitlement to damages (cf. Rodriguez v Valentine, 20 AD3d 558, 559 [2005]; Laurie Marie M. v Jeffrey T.M., 159 AD2d 52, 55-56 [1990], affd 77 NY2d 981 [1991]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to an award of damages, and properly directed dismissal of the complaint. Mastro, A.EJ., Florio, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 1276, 944 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gatz-v-layburn-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack