You are here: / / THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WHOSE ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK WAS NOT ENTITLED...

THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WHOSE ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FURTHER DISCOVERY PRIOR TO THE INQUEST ON DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defaulting defendant whose answer had been struck was not entitled to further discovery for the inquest on damages:

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness and to compel the plaintiff to provide additional discovery. “While a defaulting defendant is entitled to present testimony and evidence and cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses at the inquest on damages, such a defendant is not entitled to any further discovery since its answer was stricken” … . Here, since the court struck the defendant’s answer … the defendant “is not entitled to any further discovery” … . Brasil-Puello v Weisman, 2022 NY Slip Op 04893, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: A defaulting defendant whose answer has been struck is not entitled to discovery prior to the inquest on damages.

 

You might also like
Abutting-Property-Owners Not Responsible for Defects in Sidewalk Tree Wells/City Did Not Have Written Notice of Defect in Tree Well Where Plaintiff Fell
PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED BY DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT’S EMPLOYEE BASED ON A FALSE ALLEGATION AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ARRESTED; PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT ON HIS BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT CAUSES OF ACTION UPHELD (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST IS A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND BATTERY STEMMING FROM THE ARREST (SECOND DEPT).
THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, IN A BRIEF TO THE APPELLATE COURT, ALERTED THE COURT TO NEW INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE CUSTODY RULING BY FAMILY COURT; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A REOPENED HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Tree Removal Was First Step in Making Structural Repairs, Injury During Tree Removal Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)
EVIDENCE THE CHILD WITNESSED A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND FATHER WAS SUFFICIENT FOR A FINDING FATHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ASSERT THE BANK LACKED STANDING IN HIS ANSWER AND DID NOT OPPOSE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STANDING ISSUE AND DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Snow Removal Efforts Created Dangerous Condition (Black Ice)

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

BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTIONS BY CERTIFICATEHOLDERS AGAINST THE TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL... TO AVOID DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) THE PLAINTIFF NEED ONLY TAKE PROCEEDINGS...