Rokina Optical Co., Inc. v. Camera King, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 September 1984 |
| Citation | 63 N.Y.2d 728,480 N.Y.S.2d 197 |
| Parties | , 469 N.E.2d 518 ROKINA OPTICAL CO., INC., Respondent, v. CAMERA KING, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 98 A.D.2d 1001, 470 N.Y.S.2d 268, should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for a new trial on the issue of damages.
This action was commenced by summons and complaint alleging that defendant had accepted merchandise delivered by plaintiff for which payment was due. The complaint demanded judgment in the amount of $90,161.30, representing the amount allegedly owed for the merchandise. In its answer, defendant contended that certain of the goods had been paid for by check, that other payments were made by applying the cost to defendant of advertising plaintiff's merchandise in trade publications as credit against the sum owed, and that a portion of the merchandise had been returned to plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff served a set of interrogatories, which defendant failed to answer. As a result, plaintiff moved, pursuant to CPLR 3126 (subd. 3), for an order striking defendant's answer and for entry of judgment in its favor. After obtaining a three-week adjournment of the motion, defendant defaulted, resulting in an order granting the motion. Judgment was entered for the full relief demanded in the complaint. Two months later, defendant obtained an order to show cause seeking an order vacating the default judgment.
Special Term granted defendant's motion to vacate only as to the amount of the judgment, and ordered a trial "solely on the issue of the amount of damages." Special Term's order limited the evidence to be taken at the trial to that establishing the reasonable value of the merchandise delivered to defendant, thus precluding evidence relating to claimed payments and credits. Defendant objected at trial to the restricted scope of admissible evidence, asserting that, if allowed, it would show that it owed plaintiff only $3,678.90. Following the trial, the court reduced the judgment to $62,053.95 based on plaintiff's concession that it had realized $28,107.55 on resale of returned merchandise. The Appellate Division affirmed, without opinion.
The limitation imposed by Special Term's vacatur order on the scope of the evidence permitted at the damages trial does not comport with the law previously enunciated by this court concerning the determination of damages following a default (see Reynolds Securities v. Underwriters Bank & Trust Co., 44 N.Y.2d 568, 406 N.Y.S.2d 743, 378 N.E.2d 106; McClelland v. Climax Hosiery Mills, 252 N.Y. 347, 169 N.E. 605). Thus, the Appellate Division erred in affirming the amended judgment which was necessarily affected by the erroneous vacatur order (see CPLR 5501, subd. par. 1).
Unless the damages sought in an action are for a "sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CDR Créances S.A. v. Cohen
...arguments regarding liability were properly found to be foreclosed by their default ( see Rokina Opt. Co. v. Camera King, 63 N.Y.2d 728, 730, 480 N.Y.S.2d 197, 469 N.E.2d 518 [1984] ). Supreme Court correctly awarded damages without conducting a hearing, correctly found plaintiff's claims a......
-
21st Mortg. Corp. v. Raghu
...( Glenwood Mason Supply Co., Inc. v. Frantellizzi, 138 A.D.3d 925, 926, 31 N.Y.S.3d 107 ; see Rokina Opt. Co. v. Camera King, Inc., 63 N.Y.2d 728, 730, 480 N.Y.S.2d 197, 469 N.E.2d 518 ; Cole–Hatchard v. Eggers, 132 A.D.3d 718, 720, 18 N.Y.S.3d 100 ). A notice of motion pursuant to CPLR 321......
-
Mendoza v. Highpoint Associates
...striking of an answer, which effectively resolves a claim against the nondisclosing defendant ( see Rokina Opt. Co. v. Camera King, 63 N.Y.2d 728, 480 N.Y.S.2d 197, 469 N.E.2d 518 [1984] ). Accordingly, summary judgment should be granted where the non-disclosing defendant can establish enti......
-
Otto v. Otto
...the basic allegation of liability, but does not admit the plaintiff's conclusion as to damages' (Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King, 63 NY2d 728, 730[, 480 N.Y.S.2d 197, 469 N.E.2d 518]; see also, McClelland v Climax Hosiery Mills, 252 NY 347, 352; Winson Gems v D. Gumbiner, Inc., 85 AD2d 69, 71......
-
The admissibility of expert opinion and the bases of expert opinion in sex offender civil management trials in New York.
...upon in the profession; or (2) material from a witness subject to full cross examination at trial. Id. at 726, 469 N.E.2d at 518, 480 N.Y.S.2d at 197. (63) See id. at 725-26, 469 N.E.2d at 517-18, 480 N.Y.S.2d at (64) Id. In New York, expert opinion can be based on one of four general found......