Legal Opinion

Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC v. Lurzer GmbH

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided September 24, 2002PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

It is well settled that a default judgment may be determinative of liability but not the amount of damages to be awarded, unless there can be no dispute as to the amount due, the amount sought being a “sum certain” (see Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King, 63 NY2d 728, 730; Reynolds Sec. v Underwriters Bank & Trust Co., 44 NY2d 568; see also CPLR 3215 [a]). Accordingly, inasmuch as claims for attorneys’ fees, such has those made in this action, are not ordinarily amenable to characterization as claims for “sums certain” (see e.g. Albert I. Lonstein, P.C. v Seeman, 112 AD2d 566; see also Reynolds…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rokina Optical Co. v. Camera King, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Reynolds Securities, Inc. v. Underwriters Bank & Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. Albert I. Lonstein, P. C. v. SeemanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Merchants Bank of New York v. ItzkoffAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API