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
HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE FOR ACTS OF SURGEON WHO WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA OUTLINED.
Not Clear Superior Court Information (SCI) Charged Same Offense as Felony Complaint/SCI and Related Waiver of Indictment Not Valid
EXECUTOR’S DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMAL ACCOUNTING OF THE ESTATE TO BENEFICIARIES WAS SUFFICIENT, BENEFICIARY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE A RELEASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, IMPOSED AN INJUNCTION AND DETERMINED ISSUES OF FACT; NO MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT AND NO HEARING WAS HELD (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS TENANT HARASSMENT AND PRIVATE NUISANCE ACTION BY TENANTS AGAINST THE LANDLORD, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENTIRELY PROHIBITING VIDEO CAMERAS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY ISSUED TREE PIT PERMITS FOR THE SIDEWALK ABOVE A SUBWAY STATION; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THE SUBWAY STATION BELOW THE SIDEWALK WHEN A PIECE OF CONCRETE FELL; THE CITY DID NOT CLAIM IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (TREE PIT PERMITS) (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS ALLEGED ONE MAN INTENDED TO DOUSE ANOTHER WITH LIQUID IN A CUP BUT UNINTENTIONALLY THREW THE CUP ITSELF CAUSING INJURY; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT OR AN ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION DEFENDANT RECEIVED A LETTER ALLEGEDLY REQUESTING THAT SURVEILLANCE VIDEO BEFORE AND AFTER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL BE PRESERVED AS THERE WAS NO PROOF OF MAILING, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR SPOLIATION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126 (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2025 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...