Znojewski v. Mamczur

194 N.Y.S.3d 778, 2023 NY Slip Op 04617
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 13, 2023
DocketIndex No. 715581/19
StatusPublished

This text of 194 N.Y.S.3d 778 (Znojewski v. Mamczur) 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
Znojewski v. Mamczur, 194 N.Y.S.3d 778, 2023 NY Slip Op 04617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Znojewski v Mamczur (2023 NY Slip Op 04617)
Znojewski v Mamczur
2023 NY Slip Op 04617
Decided on September 13, 2023
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on September 13, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P.
LARA J. GENOVESI
WILLIAM G. FORD
LILLIAN WAN, JJ.

2022-05563
(Index No. 715581/19)

[*1]Malgorzata Znojewski, appellant,

v

Monika Mamczur, respondent.


Mallilo & Grossman, Flushing, NY (Sarah Wilner of counsel), for appellant.



DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pam Jackman Brown, J.), entered June 27, 2022. The order, after an inquest on the issue of damages, directed the dismissal of the complaint.

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, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new inquest on the issue of damages.

By defaulting, the defendant admitted "all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability" (Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King, 63 NY2d 728, 730; see Youngja Lee v Hong Kong Supermarket, 214 AD3d 964, 965). As such, the sole issue to be determined at the inquest was the extent of the damages sustained by the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court should not have considered issues of liability (see Youngja Lee v Hong Kong Supermarket, 214 AD3d at 965; Arluck v Brezinska, 180 AD3d 634, 634-635).

Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from, and remit this matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new inquest on the issue of damages.

IANNACCI, J.P., GENOVESI, FORD and WAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Acting Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Arluck v. Brezinska
2020 NY Slip Op 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Rokina Optical Co. v. Camera King, Inc.
469 N.E.2d 518 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 N.Y.S.3d 778, 2023 NY Slip Op 04617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/znojewski-v-mamczur-nyappdiv-2023.