for Ozman’s actions. Plaintiff speculates that, in denying the summary judgment motion, Judge Duffy merely found that the default judgment did not establish the Bank’s responsibility for Ozman’s actions. Relying heavily on Judge Duffy’s statement that “[t]he default taken establishes nothing,” the Bank argues that Judge Duffy has already ruled that the default judgment cannot be used against the Bank. In addition, the Bank argues that a default judgment, as a matter of law, has no effect on a co-defendant. Finally, arguing that it has been prejudiced by Ozman’s actions, the Bank argues that the default judgment is not admissible because it is irrelevant hearsay. But see Zaken v. Boerer, 964 F.2d 1319, 1323 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 467, 121 L.Ed.2d 375 (1992) (<HOLDING>). As an initial matter, it is not productive to
holding that plaintiffs failure to mention vice president of thirdparty company in initial disclosures was harmless because plaintiffs mentioned president of company and defendants conducted no discovery of company holding that statement is admission by partyopponent if made by partys agent or servant concerning matter within course and scope of the agency or employment and made during existence of agency or employment relationship holding that liability to the insured for acts or contracts of an insurance agent within the scope of his agency with a full disclosure of the principal rests on the company holding owner of limited liability company may be personally liable to third party if owner acts as agent for company and fails to disclose existence and identity of principal holding that statements of a company vice president were admissible against the principal owner of the company under fedrevid 801d2d as an admission made by the partys agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment