D D & P Realty, Inc. v. RobustianoD D & P Realty, Inc. v. Robustiano
Supreme Court erred in reopening and redetermining the issue of Haas‘s liability (see Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King, 63 NY2d 728, 730 [1984]; Christian v Hashmet Mgt. Corp., 189 AD2d 597, 598 [1993]). By defaulting, Haas was deemed to have admitted liability and should only have been permitted to contest the amount of damages at the inquest (see Amusement Bus. Underwriters v American Intl. Group, 66 NY2d 878, 880 [1985]; Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King, 63 NY2d at 730-731; McClelland v Climax Hosiery Mills, 252 NY 347, 351 [1930]). As no one has appealed the amount of damages awarded, plaintiff is entitled to judgment against both defaulting defendants in that amount.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as denied plaintiff‘s demand for a judgment against defendant Jarrod Haas, individually and doing business as J. Haas & Sons, and, as so modified, affirmed.