PIKULIN v. MIKSHAKOV (1999)

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for the breach of a lease, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G.Aronin, J.), dated November 20, 1997, which denied his renewed motion for leave to enter a judgment for the sum demanded in the ad damnum clause of his complaint on the defendants' default in appearing in the action.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

 Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly directed an inquest for the purpose of ascertaining damages.   Where the damages sought against a defendant who has failed to appear are for a “sum certain”, judgment may be entered by the clerk (CPLR 3215[a] ).   However, “ [t]he term ‘sum certain’ in this context contemplates a situation in which, once liability has been established, there can be no dispute as to the amount due, as in actions on money judgments and negotiable instruments” (Reynolds Secs. v. Underwriters Bank and Trust Co., 44 N.Y.2d 568, 572, 406 N.Y.S.2d 743, 378 N.E.2d 106).   Where, as here, damages cannot be determined without extrinsic proof, an inquest is required (see, Reynolds Secs. v. Underwriters Bank and Trust Co., supra;  Gaylord Bros., Inc. v. RND Co., 134 A.D.2d 848, 523 N.Y.S.2d 4).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.