Galloo-Ile-De- France v. Lancaster International LLC, 1:14-cv-00629

Plaintiff Gallo Ile-de-France sues Lancaster International, LLC for misrepresentation to induce payment of invoices totaling €447,353.50.
Invoices alleged for scrap metal shipments that never occurred and referenced container numbers that did not exist.
Lancaster failed to respond after service; default entered by Clerk pursuant to Rule 55.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and consequential damages, prejudgment interest, and costs.
Court may enter default judgment on liability and determine damages from affidavits and documents, not necessarily a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default judgment on liability is proper	Gallo argues Lancaster failed to respond, entitling default liability.	Lancaster did not appear; no counterarguments are presented in the record.	Default judgment granted as to liability.
Whether damages can be awarded without a hearing	Damages supported by detailed affidavits and invoices; computation feasible.	Not explicitly stated in record; default procedure allows damages if supported.	Damages awarded based on affidavits and documentary evidence.
Whether prejudgment interest is recoverable	Interest accrues on compensatory and fraud-related damages at 9% per annum.	Not directly challenged in record.	Prejudgment interest awarded at 9% per annum up to judgment date.
Whether plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees under NY Gen. Bus. Law § 349	Plaintiff seeks fees under § 349 for deceptive acts.	No cause of action pled under § 349; broad consumer impact lacking.	Attorney's fees and costs denied.

Bravado Int'l Group Merch. Servs. v. Ninna, Inc., 655 F. Supp. 2d 177 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (liability established; damages require proof; default damages possible with basis)
Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155 (2d Cir. 1992) (default judgment requires court to ensure basis for damages)
Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702 (2d Cir. 1974) (damages generally require proof; not all cases need a hearing)
Overcash v. United Abstract Group, Inc., 549 F. Supp. 2d 193 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (court may rely on affidavits/documentary evidence for damages)
Insurance Co. of North America v. S/S Hellenic Challenger, 88 F.R.D. 545 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (prejudgment interest rules and recoverability)
City of New York v. Smokes–Spirits.Com, Inc., 12 N.Y.3d 616 (N.Y. 2009) (§ 349 consumer-oriented conduct; need broad impact)
New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308 (N.Y. 1995) (consumer-related standards; private contract disputes not within § 349)
Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, 85 N.Y.2d 20 (N.Y. 1995) (private disputes not within § 349; consumer impact required)
Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc., 88 N.Y.2d 413 (N.Y. 1996) (consequential damages when naturally flowing and computable)
North State Autobahn, Inc. v. Progressive Ins. Group Co., 102 A.D.3d 5 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) (§ 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct with broad impact)