Opinion
No. 2020-01127 Index No. 510129/18
12-21-2022
Yassely Dominguez, appellant, v. Malecon Shipping, Inc., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
Law Offices of James F. Sullivan, P.C., New York, NY (Joshua A. Eidsvaag of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of James F. Sullivan, P.C., New York, NY (Joshua A. Eidsvaag of counsel), for appellant.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P. ROBERT J. MILLER LINDA CHRISTOPHER BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover unpaid wages, and damages for violations of the Labor Law and employment discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Derefim Neckles, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated December 23, 2019. The order, after an inquest on the issue of damages, sua sponte, in effect, directed dismissal of the complaint.
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c]); and it is further, ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new inquest on the issue of damages; and it is further, ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
In May 2018, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover unpaid wages, and damages for violations of the Labor Law and employment discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. By order dated April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' answer and directed an inquest on the issue of damages. After conducting the inquest, the court, in an order dated December 23, 2019, determined that the plaintiff "failed to establish that defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and/or sex, in violation of [the] New York State Human Rights Law by terminating her based upon her pregnancy" and thereupon, sua sponte, in effect, directed dismissal of the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.
As a result of having their answer stricken, the defendants were deemed to admit all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability (see Mears v Long, 173 A.D.3d 734, 735; Almonte v Pichardo, 105 A.D.3d 687, 688). Consequently, the sole issue to be determined at the inquest was the extent of the damages sustained by the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court should not have considered issues of liability (see Castaldini v Walsh, 186 A.D.3d 1193, 1194; Arluck v Brezinska, 180 A.D.3d 634, 635; Gonzalez v Wu, 131 A.D.3d 1205, 1206). Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new inquest on the issue of damages.
Since we are remitting the matter for a new inquest, we note that the Supreme Court should also address the issue of damages related to the plaintiff's causes of action to recover unpaid wages and damages for violations of the Labor Law.
IANNACCI, J.P., MILLER, CHRISTOPHER and WARHIT, JJ., concur.