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
Conviction Reversed Because Court Failed to Inquire About the Reasons for Defendant’s Request for Substitution of Counsel After Trial Began
Paving Over Walk Where Plaintiff Fell Justified Striking the Answer and Granting Summary Judgment on Liability
THE PEOPLE PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF ON RISK FACTORS 2 AND 4, REQUIRING A 45 POINT REDUCTION (SECOND DEPT).
Setback Dimensions Drawn on Subdivision Map Not Reflected in Documents in Defendants’ Chain of Title/Setback Restrictions, Therefore, Did Not Run With the Land
Questions of Fact Re: Whether a Deed Was Forged and Whether a Will Was Duly Executed
THE AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS OFFERED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION FOR THE RECORDS, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF REAL ESTATE BROKER DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS ENTITLED TO A BROKERAGE FEE; THE BROKERAGE AGREEMENT EXPIRED BY ITS OWN TERMS BEFORE THE LEASE TOOK EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION; PLAINITFF’S DECEDENT WAS ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL WITH COVID AND DIED FROM COVID; IMMUNITY IS PROVIDED BY THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) (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 © 2026 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...