A recent decision, Dominguez v. Malecon Shipping, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07221 (N.Y. App. Div. 2nd Dept. Dec. 21, 2022), illustrates what happens, procedurally, when a defendant’s answer is stricken.
From the decision:
In May 2018, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover unpaid wages, and damages for violations of the Labor Law and employment discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. By order dated April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ answer and directed an inquest on the issue of damages. After conducting the inquest, the court, in an order dated December 23, 2019, determined that the plaintiff “failed to establish that defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and/or sex, in violation of [the] New York State Human Rights Law by terminating her based upon her pregnancy” and thereupon, sua sponte, in effect, directed dismissal of the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.
As a result of having their answer stricken, the defendants were deemed to admit all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability (see Mears v Long, 173 AD3d 734, 735; Almonte v Pichardo, 105 AD3d 687, 688). Consequently, the sole issue to be determined at the inquest was the extent of the damages sustained by the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court should not have considered issues of liability (see Castaldini v Walsh, 186 AD3d 1193, 1194; Arluck v Brezinska, 180 AD3d 634, 635; Gonzalez v Wu, 131 AD3d 1205, 1206).
Based on this, the court reversed the lower order and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for a new inquest on the issue of damages.