From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wexler v. Malpeso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 4, 1998
251 A.D.2d 49 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 4, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).


Defendant's answer "has been properly struck and an inquest ordered ( see, Wexler v. Malpeso, 234 A.D.2d 149), and, as a further consequence of his default, defendant has forfeited his right to take plaintiff's deposition ( see, Reynolds Sec. v. Underwriters Bank Trust Co., 44 N.Y.2d 568, 573). However, since plaintiffs' damage claims are not deemed admitted by reason of the striking of defendant's answer ( see, Curiale v. Ardra Ins. Co., 88 N.Y.2d 268, 279), the motion court properly ruled that plaintiffs' entitlement to punitive damages could not be determined in advance of the inquest. We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Wexler v. Malpeso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 4, 1998
251 A.D.2d 49 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Wexler v. Malpeso

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA WEXLER et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. PASQUALE MALPESO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 4, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 49 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 723

Citing Cases

Kessler v. Atlantic Avenue CVS, Inc.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants are not precluded from contesting the plaintiffs'…

Brasil-Puello v. Weisman

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant's motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of…