Published on:

Plaintiff Moves for an Inquest as to Damages, NY Supreme Court Decides


This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County. The plaintiff is moving for an inquest on damages and the defendant has cross moved for an order that was made on the 13th of February, 2008 to be vacated. The defendant has also requested a renewal and re-argument for an order that was made in this court that denied his request to videotape his deposition and is also moving for recusal of this court.

Court Discussion

The court will first look at the defendant’s request for recusal of this court. This request will be denied for the following reasons. First, it must be noted that this motion is part of a pattern of the defendant to seek recusal of the judge that is presiding over any matter that he is involved with.

For example, when the first justice of this court was presiding over the case the defendant sought her recusal. These motions were denied. In a matter unrelated to this one the defendant sought recusal from this court. The court denied this motion as well.

It must be noted that the grounds for recusal in each of the cases contain language that is identical. The Administrative Judge from New York County has handpicked this court as well as the other justices to preside over the various actions and these courts as well as the justices have a relationship with the plaintiff.

There is no merit for the argument made by the defendant. The allegations are unsubstantiated and there is no evidence of any kind to show that the court has some kind of relationship with the plaintiff. Even if the court did have a relationship with the plaintiff it is not ground for recusal of the court.

Next, the court will consider the motion by the defendant to vacate the decision made in court on the 13th of February, 2008 and the motion to renew and reargue the decision made in this court on the 7th of February, 2008.

These orders must be looked at because of an order in connection with the orders from February made in December where the defendant’s counsel asked to be relieved from their position as his counsel. The action was adjourned until the middle of January and then ended up on the calendar in this court for the 7th of February, 2008.

A new counsel appeared for the defendant on this date and the court directed the counsel to file a notice of appearance and that the depositions would go forward. The counsel requested that the deposition of the defendant be videotaped. This request was denied by the court.

Court Decision

After reviewing the background of the case the cross motion by the defendant for renewal and re-argument of the order from February 7th that denied his request to videotape his deposition is denied. The motion for vacating the February 13th order is denied as well. The motion from the plaintiff regarding an inquest on damages is denied.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates have law offices located throughout New York City. You may call one of our offices at any time in order to speak with and experienced lawyer regarding your legal matter. A free consultation will be provided upon your first visit to our offices.

Posted in:
Published on:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information