PHILADELPHIA – The owner of a used car dealership in Northeast Philadelphia was unsuccessful in striking a $235,000 judgment levied against him in a premises liability action filed a plaintiff injured on his business property.
Daise Dobbs and Eric Wisher (h/w) of Philadelphia first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 20, 2015 versus A. Impulse Auto and Yudik Aysentshteyn, both also of Philadelphia.
“On or about June 2, 2014, plaintiff Daise Dobbs was severely injured due to carelessness, recklessness, negligence and complete willful disregard exhibited by the defendants. In particular, at that time, defendants knowingly, willingly and with full and absolute knowledge, allowed a defective condition to exist on the property where business invitees would, could and did venture,” according to the lawsuit.
“At that time and place, plaintiff Daise Dobbs was a business invitee when she was seriously and permanently injured due to defendants’ negligence. The negligence of the defendants includes but is not limited to: Failing to maintain the property properly, failing to warn plaintiff of the defective condition, failing to repair the defective condition, failing to properly maintain the premises, disregard for the safety of business invitees and negligence as a matter of law.”
The accident came about as a result of the plaintiff allegedly sitting on a bench that gave way, causing her to fall. Dobbs suffered injuries to her right knee, spine, lower and upper extremities and other parts of the body in the accident.
On July 2, the plaintiffs filed a petition for contempt in this matter, explaining in February 2017, a $235,000 judgment was entered against the defendants and a Sheriff’s Levy including eight cars was issued later that summer in August.
“On Dec. 6, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel David H. Denenberg sent a letter to the Sheriff of Philadelphia County requesting he list the property located at 4700 Torresdale Avenue for sale. The cars were removed from the lot despite the Sheriff’s levy. The removal of the cars violated the mandate of the Writ of Execution and the Sheriff’s Levies,” per the stated petition.
“Phila.Civ.R.206.1(a)(1)(vi) enables the plaintiffs to petition for contempt. Pa.R.C.P. 3118(a)(6) states: On petition of the plaintiff, after notice and hearing, the court in which a judgment has been entered may, before or after the issuance of a writ of execution, enter an order against any party or person granting such other relief as may be deemed necessary and appropriate. Pa.R.C.P. 3115(e) states: Violation of the mandate and injunctive orders of the writ may be punished as a contempt.”
When the defendants finally attempted to strike the $235,000 judgment in January of this year, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge John M. Younge issued an order on Aug. 10 denying that action.
“When the defendants were before this Court, the main thrust of their petition to open and/or strike the default judgment was based on their argument that this Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct an assessment of damages following the entry of default judgment. However, the defendants tacitly admit that this argument was without merit when they abandoned their claim to jurisdiction based on service of process in their 1925(b) concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. For all intents and purposes, they admit that there was no factual dispute as to the main argument that they advanced before this Court,” Younge’s order read.
“Yudik Aysentshteyn, the sole owner, operator and employee of A. Impulse Auto was well-aware that the above-captioned litigation was pending against himself and his company. It was completely unreasonable for him to fail to properly defend this action and expect that the judgment entered against himself (and A. Impulse Auto) would be struck practically a year after it was entered on the docket.”
For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiff was seeking damages, jointly and severally, in excess of $50,000 of compensatory and delay damages, interest and allowable costs of this suit.
The plaintiff is represented by Thomas More Holland of the Law Offices of Thomas M. Holland and David H. Denenberg of Abramson & Denenberg, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Jonathan Stanwood of the Law Office of Jonathan Stanwood in Philadelphia, Sean P. Mays of the Mays Law Firm of Warminster.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 151103182
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nickpennrecord@gmail.com