1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.2d
  4. 283 A.D.2d
  5. 283 A.D.2d 318 (2001)
 

RUZAL v. MOHAMMAD

283 A.D.2d 318 (2001)

724 N.Y.S.2d 854

HAL RUZAL, Respondent, v. KAMRUL H. MOHAMMAD et al., Appellants.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

Decided May 24, 2001.

Where a defendant has defaulted in an action and the subsequent assessment of damages requires extrinsic proof, such defendant must have "a full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, give testimony and offer proof in mitigation of damages" (Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King, 63 N.Y.2d 728, 730 [citation omitted]; Conteh v Hand, 234 A.D.2d 96). Thus...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases