Reilly v. Grieco
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Child sexual abuse civil action under the Child Victims Act and civil procedure—scope of evidence at a damages-only trial after a default on liability.
After entering a default judgment on liability against the defendant, the trial court permitted the defendant to deny liability during the damages trial; the jury awarded the plaintiff $0 on all categories, and the court denied the plaintiff’s motion under CPLR 4404(a) [authorizes court to set aside a jury verdict and order a new trial in the interest of justice] to set aside the verdict.
The Appellate Division reversed the $0 judgment, granted the plaintiff’s CPLR 4404(a) motion, and ordered a new trial on damages; it also affirmed the denial of the defendant’s CPLR 5015(a)(1) [permits vacatur of default judgment for excusable default upon showing of reasonable excuse and meritorious defense] motion to vacate his default, dismissed the appeal from the September 26, 2023 order as superseded by the judgment (issues reviewed under CPLR 5501[a][1] [prior nonfinal orders adverse to appellant are reviewable upon appeal from final judgment]), and dismissed the appeal from the October 3, 2023 order as abandoned.
A defaulting defendant admits liability and may not introduce evidence to defeat the cause of action at a damages-only trial (Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King). The trial court erred by allowing the defendant to testify that the abuse allegations were untrue, violating a pretrial order and prejudicing the plaintiff; in the interest of justice under CPLR 4404(a), a new damages trial was required. The defendant also failed to offer a reasonable excuse for his default under CPLR 5015(a)(1).
Background
In August 2021, the plaintiff sued under the Child Victims Act, CPLR 214-g [revival window for time-barred civil claims by survivors of child sexual abuse], alleging the defendant sexually abused her as a child. The defendant failed to appear or answer. On August 15, 2022, the court granted a default judgment on liability and set a jury trial on damages. The defendant moved to vacate the default under CPLR 5015(a)(1), which the court denied on November 18, 2022. A June 16, 2023 pretrial order precluded any testimony denying liability. At the damages trial, over objection, the court permitted the defendant to testify that the abuse allegations were untrue and denied the plaintiff’s application to strike. The jury awarded $0 for past and future pain and suffering, $0 for future medical expenses, and no punitive damages. The plaintiff’s CPLR 4404(a) motion to set aside the verdict was denied on September 26, 2023, and a $0 judgment was entered on October 5, 2023. Appeals followed, including from an October 3, 2023 order that the plaintiff did not brief.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court entered a default judgment on liability against the defendant but, at the damages trial, allowed him to deny liability despite a preclusion order, resulting in a $0 verdict. It denied the plaintiff’s CPLR 4404(a) motion to set aside the verdict and for a new damages trial, and earlier denied the defendant’s CPLR 5015(a)(1) motion to vacate his default.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed the $0 judgment, granted the plaintiff’s CPLR 4404(a) motion, and remitted for a new trial on damages, holding that the defendant’s denial-of-liability testimony violated the pretrial order and the rule that a defaulting defendant cannot introduce evidence to defeat liability at a damages-only trial, and that the error likely affected the verdict. It affirmed the denial of the defendant’s CPLR 5015(a)(1) motion for lack of a reasonable excuse. The appeal from the September 26, 2023 order was dismissed as superseded by the judgment, with issues reviewed under CPLR 5501(a)(1), and the appeal from the October 3, 2023 order was dismissed as abandoned. One bill of costs was awarded to the plaintiff.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that after a default on liability, the defendant admits all traversable allegations of liability and cannot present liability-defeating evidence at a damages trial; violating that rule and a pretrial preclusion order is prejudicial and warrants a new trial in the interest of justice under CPLR 4404(a). Clarifies the stringent standards for vacating a default under CPLR 5015(a)(1) and illustrates appellate practice: appeals from nonfinal orders are subsumed in the appeal from the final judgment under CPLR 5501(a)(1), and unbriefed appeals are abandoned.
In a damages-only trial following a liability default in a Child Victims Act case, a defendant cannot deny liability; allowing such testimony is reversible error requiring a new damages trial, and a default will not be vacated absent a reasonable excuse.