You are here: / / Defaulting Party Can Give Testimony and Present Evidence at Damages Proceeding...
,

Defaulting Party Can Give Testimony and Present Evidence at Damages Proceeding 

The defendant’s answer in a partition action was struck due to his failure to comply with disclosure requests and court orders.  At the inquest the defendant was allowed to cross-examine plaintiff’s witnesses but was not allowed give testimony or offer proof in mitigation of the alleged damages.  The Second Department wrote:

[A] defendant whose answer is stricken as a result of a default admits all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability, but does not admit the plaintiff’s conclusion as to damages'” … . Indeed, where an entry of a default judgment against a defendant is made after an application to the court, the defendant is entitled to a ” full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, give testimony and offer proof in mitigation of damages'” … .  Rawlings v Gillert, 2013 NY Slip Op 02063, 2011-11951, Index No 7570/08, 2nd Dept 3-27-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, WHETHER DEFENDANT STOPPED BEFORE ENTERING PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF WAY WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE.
CPLR 1021 DEFINES THE PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A DECEASED PARTY; HERE THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED; THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE EXECUTOR WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
Either Possession of the Note or an Assignment of the Note Confers Standing
Insufficient Proof of an Agreement to Assume a Mortgage at the Time Deed Transferred
Bank Did Not Negotiate a Mortgage Modification in Good Faith as Required by CPLR 3408—Applicable “Good Faith” Standard Determined and Explained
NEGLECT STEMMING FROM MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS NOT PROVEN, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Analytical Criteria for Stipulation of Settlement Which Is Incorporated But Not Merged
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW BASED ON A VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN VEHICLE TO WORK AND WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Notice of Appearance Does Not Waive Lack of Jurisdiction Defense Excuse for Default Found Inadequate