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
Labor Law 200/Common-Law Negligence Cause of Action Properly Dismissed—City Demonstrated It Did Not Have the Authority to Supervise and Control the Work—Labor Law 241(6) Cause of Action, However, Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Nondelegable Duty to Provide a Safe Workplace
Defendant Shoveled Sidewalk and Snow Piled on Either Side Melted/Question of Fact Whether Defendant Created the Dangerous Condition Resulting from Subsequent Freezing of Melted Snow
Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Coverage in Pennsylvania Policy Unenforceable in New York
SURVEILLANCE VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED, IT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT).
SNOW AND ICE ON FRONT STEPS WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, NO DUTY TO WARN (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS HAD STANDING TO BRING A COMMON-LAW ACTION TO ENJOIN ZONING VIOLATIONS BY VIRTUE OF THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTIES.
PETITIONER HAD THE BURDEN TO PROVE RESPONDENT WAS SERVED; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE REVERSED THE BURDEN OF PROOF; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT “APPEARED INFORMALLY” THROUGH THE CEO’S AFFIDAVIT; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...