From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pikulin v. Mikshakov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1999
258 A.D.2d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 1, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly directed an inquest for the purpose of ascertaining damages. Where the damages sought against a defendant who has failed to appear are for a "sum certain", judgment may be entered by the clerk (CPLR 3215 [a]). However, "[t]he term 'sum certain' in this context contemplates a situation in which, once liability has been established, there can be no dispute as to the amount due, as in actions on money judgments and negotiable instruments" ( Reynolds Sec. v. Underwriters Bank Trust Co., 44 N.Y.2d 568, 572). Where, as here, damages cannot be determined without extrinsic proof, an inquest is required ( see, Reynolds Sec. v. Underwriters Bank Trust Co., supra; Gaylord Bros. v. RND Co., 134 A.D.2d 848).

Santucci, J. P., Joy, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pikulin v. Mikshakov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1999
258 A.D.2d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Pikulin v. Mikshakov

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM PIKULIN, Appellant, v. LEON MIKSHAKOV et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 598

Citing Cases

Adelphi Acad. Brooklyn v. Tabel

If the plaintiff's claim is for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain,…

Gleich v. Gritsipis

While the statute directs that the amount of the judgment shall be the amount demanded in the complaint or…