You are here: / / THE DAMAGES AMOUNT ASSESSED AGAINST THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT IN THE INQUEST...

THE DAMAGES AMOUNT ASSESSED AGAINST THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT IN THE INQUEST WAS EXCESSIVE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the amount of damages assessed against the defaulting defendant in the inquest was excessive:

Although this Court is not relieving the defendant of his default, this Court may consider whether excessive damages were awarded … . “An unwarranted and excessive award after inquest will not be sustained, as to do otherwise ‘would be tantamount to granting the plaintiffs an open season at the expense of a defaulting defendant'” … . Based upon the proof submitted at the inquest, an award of $25,000 constitutes reasonable compensation … . Kokolis v Wallace, 2022 NY Slip Op 01018, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

You might also like
SCRAP METAL SALES OPERATION WAS NOT A TRANSFER STATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COUNTY SOLID WASTE LAW.
THE CONVICTION FOR GRAND LARCENY BY FALSE REPRESENTATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT RECEIVED ADDITIONAL FUNDS AFTER MAKING THE ALLEGED FALSE REPRESENTATION AND NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS AT THE TIME THE ALLEGED FALSE REPRESENTATION WAS MADE (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE SUPPORTED DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED (HEARSAY) (SECOND DEPT). ​
LABOR LAW 240(1) NOT APPLICABLE TO INJURY FROM A PORTION OF A FENCE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT INSUFFICIENT AT BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TRIAL STAGES IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
BARKING AND STRAINING AT THE LEASH CONSTITUTE NORMAL CANINE BEHAVIOR AND DID NOT SERVE TO MAKE DEFENDANTS AWARE OF THE DOG’S ALLEGED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PARENTAL ACCESS BY CONDITIONING ACCESS ON THE CONSENT OF THE CHILDREN (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE PURPORTED STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THE... PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMONSTRATED HE HAD SUFFICIENT INFORMATION...