You are here: / / AN ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WHICH WAS NOT SERVED...

AN ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WHICH WAS NOT SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT BY THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an order that was not served on the defendant by the plaintiff, here an order striking the answer if discovery demands were not complied with by a specified date, was not enforceable:

… [T]he plaintiff, as the successful moving party given that the Supreme Court conditionally granted that branch of the prior motion which was to strike the defendant’s answer, was required to serve the May 2016 order on the defendant for that order to be enforceable against the defendant with respect to its answer being stricken in the event that it failed to provide discovery responses by June 17, 2016 … . The plaintiff’s contention that since the May 2016 order did not specify that the plaintiff had to serve a copy of that order with notice of entry upon the defendant, the plaintiff did not have to do so before that order was enforceable against the defendant, is without merit (see CPLR 2220). Since the defendant did not have notice of the May 2016 order, its failure to provide discovery responses by June 17, 2016, was not willful. Wolf Props. Assoc., L.P. v Castle Restoration, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05808, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

You might also like
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT PROVEN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS AWARE OF THE CRACK IN THE BASKETBALL COURT OVER WHICH HE TRIPPED AND FELL, SUIT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, CONCURRING JUSTICE ARGUED THAT THE CRACK WAS NOT A RISK INHERENT IN THE SPORT, BUT WAS CONSTRAINED TO AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY BASED ON PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).
Non-Party Attorneys Properly Held in Civil Contempt for Starting a Class Action Suit In Violation of Anti-Suit Injunctive Order
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE TOOK ADEQUATE STEPS TO LEARN THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE CAB IN WHICH SHE WAS A PASSENGER WHEN THE CAB WAS STRUCK BY A HIT AND RUN DRIVER; PETITIONER SOUGHT TO COMMENCE AN ACTION AGAINST THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE LIABILITY IS CONCEDED BY STIPULATION, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST RUNS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES VERDICT.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THE PROVISION OF AN “AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF STOCK” WHICH CALLED FOR RECOVERY OF DOUBLE ATTORNEYS FEES BY THE PREVAILING PARTY IN LITIGATION WAS AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE COURT CONFERENCES, HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Although the Doctor Was Employed by the Hospital, His Employment Did Not Encompass His Medical Practice—Therefore the Hospital Was Not Liable for the Doctor’s Medical Malpractice Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior/$6.8 Million Verdict Against the Doctors Based Upon a Delay in Diagnosing Cancer Should Not Have Been Set Aside

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

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AN EXTENSION... THE FACT THAT THE DOG WAS A GUARD DOG AND THE NATURE OF THE ATTACK AND INJURIES...