Blog

InquestsSeptember 25, 2020

Castaldini v Walsh, 2020 NY Slip Op 04822 (2d Dept. 2020)

“A defaulting defendant “admits all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability, but does not admit the plaintiff’s conclusion as to damages” (Rokina Opt. Co., Inc. v Camera King, Inc., 63 NY2d 728, 730; see Amusement Bus. Underwriters v American Intl. Group, 66 NY2d 878, 880). “The sole issue to be determined at an inquest is the extent of damages sustained by the plaintiff,” and the inquest court should not consider the question of whether the defendant caused the damages sustained by the plaintiff (Gonzalez v Wu, 131 AD3d 1205, 1206; see Rokina Opt. Co., Inc. v Camera King, Inc., 63 NY2d at 730; Arluck v Brezinska, 180 AD3d 634; Jihun Kim v S & M Caterers, Inc., 136 AD3d 755, 756). Thus, there is no merit to [*2]Walsh’s contention that the Supreme Court should have granted his motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiffs’ evidence for failure to establish causation.

Nonetheless, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to admit into evidence the written sworn statement of Castaldini’s treating physician without making the physician available for cross-examination. At an inquest to ascertain damages upon a defendant’s default, the plaintiff may submit proof by written sworn statements of the witnesses (see CPLR 3215[b]; 22 NYCRR 202.46[b]). However, where, as here, the defaulting defendant gives notice that he or she will appear at the inquest, the plaintiff must make the witnesses available for cross-examination (see CPLR 3215[b]; Reynolds Sec. v Underwriters Bank & Trust Co., 44 NY2d 568, 572). Since Walsh did not make the physician available for cross-examination, the court should not have admitted into evidence the physician’s written sworn statement over Walsh’s objection. Further, since the court relied on the physician’s statement in making its findings of fact on damages, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new inquest on the issue of damages (see Dejesus v H.E. Broadway, Inc., 175 AD3d 1485, 1486; Tamburello v Bensonhurst Car & Limo Serv., 305 AD2d 664, 665; Beresford v Waheed, 302 AD2d 342, 343).”

This one is interesting.

Leave a Reply