Comments on: HERE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER WAS STRICKEN FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS; AT THE INQUEST THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED ONLY DAMAGES; THE JUDGE ERRED BY CONSIDERING AN ISSUE WHICH WAS “ADMITTED” BY THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE ANSWER WAS STRICKEN (SECOND DEPT).

Comments on: HERE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER WAS STRICKEN FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS; AT THE INQUEST THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED ONLY DAMAGES; THE JUDGE ERRED BY CONSIDERING AN ISSUE WHICH WAS “ADMITTED” BY THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE ANSWER WAS STRICKEN (SECOND DEPT). https://www.newyorkappellatedigest.com/2026/08/05/here-defendants-answer-was-stricken-for-discovery-violations-at-the-inquest-the-judge-should-have-considered-only-damages-the-judge-erred-by-considering-an-issue-which-was-admitted-by-the-defe/ Mon, 10 Aug 2026 11:49:20 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.3