Abdus Shahid, appellant, v. Nikolas Leonardos, et al., defendants. (2026)

Submitted—January 8, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

A/

In an action to recover damages for violations of RPAPL 778, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saul Stein, J.), dated November 12, 2024.  The order, after an inquest on the issue of damages, determined that the plaintiff had not established entitlement to damages and directed dismissal of the complaint.

ORDERED that the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c] );  and it is further,

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

The plaintiff is the purported owner of a six-family apartment building (hereinafter the property) for which the defendant Nikolas Leonardos, of the defendant Nikolas Leonardos Dafnonas Estates, Ltd. (hereinafter Dafnonas Estates), was appointed as administrator pursuant to RPAPL 778.  The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, alleging that Leonardos and Dafnonas Estates violated RPAPL 778(1) in that they failed to pay property taxes and repair bills and retained all rent collected from the tenants of the property rather than retaining only an 8% management fee.  The defendants failed to appear or answer the complaint, and the plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants.  In an order dated November 14, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion and set the matter down for an inquest on the issue of damages.  After inquest, the court determined that the plaintiff had not established entitlement to damages and directed dismissal of the complaint.  The plaintiff appeals.

“At an inquest, the plaintiff bears the burden of setting forth a prima facie case as to damages” (Bobbo Prop. Mgt., Inc. v. Faulkner, 235 AD3d 615, 616).  Here, the plaintiff failed to submit admissible proof relating to the damages claimed in the complaint.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of the complaint (see id.).

The plaintiff's contentions regarding the defendants' liability are not properly before this Court (see Gonzalez v. Wu, 131 AD3d 1205, 1206).

DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court