DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department determined plaintiff’s complaint was properly dismissed because of plaintiff’s discovery violations:
“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 drastic remedy of striking a pleading is warranted where the party’s failure to comply with court-ordered discovery is willful and contumacious'” … . “The willful or contumacious character of a party’s conduct can be inferred from the party’s repeated failure to respond to demands or to comply with discovery orders” … and the absence of a reasonable excuse for these failures … . ” Absent an improvident exercise of discretion, the determination to impose sanctions for conduct that frustrates the purpose of the CPLR should not be disturbed'” … .
Here, the willful and contumacious character of the plaintiff’s conduct can be inferred, initially, from his inadequate verified bill of particulars and response to the notice for discovery and inspection, both served nearly one year after service of the demand for a verified bill of particulars and the notice for discovery and inspection. Thereafter, the plaintiff failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive at the January 8, 2016, conference to produce any outstanding discovery within 30 days, and this failure to comply was followed by further noncompliance after the February 24, 2016, conference. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to respond in any manner to the other discovery demands. Westervelt v Westervelt, 2018 NY Slip Op 05519, Second Dept 7-25-18
CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))/DISCOVERY (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))