You are here: / / FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WARRANTED STRIKING THE ANSWER...

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WARRANTED STRIKING THE ANSWER.

The Second Department determined the defendants’ repeated failure to comply with discovery demands warranted striking defendants’ answer:

​

The nature and degree of the sanction to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is within the broad discretion of the motion court … . The striking of a pleading may be appropriate where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands or court-ordered discovery is willful and contumacious … . The willful and contumacious character of a party’s conduct can be inferred from the party’s repeated failure to comply with discovery demands or orders without a reasonable excuse … .

Here, the defendants’ willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from their repeated failures, without an adequate excuse, to comply with discovery demands and the Supreme Court’s discovery orders … . Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer and for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants. Mears v Long, 2017 NY Slip Op 02782, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WARRANTED STRIKING THE ANSWER)/DISCOVERY (FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WARRANTED STRIKING THE ANSWER)

You might also like
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS SUPPORTED BY A SWORN DENIAL OF SERVICE AND SPECIFIC FACTS WHICH REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE INFANT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL; MOTHER, FATHER AND THE DEFENDANTS PROVIDED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE FALL WAS CAUSED BY AN IDENTIFIED DEFECT IN THE SIDEWALK, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
AN AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS ATTACHED DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRUSTEES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR LACHES DEFENSES TO THE ACTION SEEKING AN ESTATE ACCOUNTING; THE TRUSTEES DID NOT OPENLY REPUDIATE THEIR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE TIME DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN FOR EITHER DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
911 CALL MADE FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE ASSAULT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PASSENGER’S INJURIES WHEN PASSENGER WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR APPROACHING FROM THE REAR.
Sole Proximate Cause of Plaintiffs’ Injuries Should Have Been Determined as a Matter of Law—Complaint Against Non-Negligent Driver (Whose Car Was Pushed into the Pedestrian-Plaintiffs by the Negligent-Driver’s Car) Should Have Been Dismissed
Criteria for Presentation of Defense Expert Re: the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IDENTITY THEFT STATUTE AMBIGUOUS, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE VICTIM’S IDENTITY... NOT CLEAR WHETHER $1740 EXEMPTION FROM A JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S RESTRAINT...