You are here: / / REPEATED FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WITH NO EXCUSE WARRANTED...
,

REPEATED FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WITH NO EXCUSE WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ failure to comply with discovery orders justified striking the answer:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer. The defendants’ willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from their repeated failures, over an extended period of time, to comply with the plaintiffs’ discovery demands and the court’s discovery orders without an adequate excuse … . L.K. v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06236, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: Here the defendants offered no excuse for their failure to comply with discovery orders and the appellate court struck their answer.

 

/by
You might also like
CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT, PROVISIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED.
THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS UNSWORN, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT OBJECT; DESPITE PLAINTFF’S SIGNING A GENERIC CONSENT FORM, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF STANDING PURSUANT TO A MERGER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Flight Did Not Justify Police Pursuit and Entry Into Defendant’s Apartment—Evidence Properly Suppressed
Unpreserved Erroneous Denial of Challenge to Juror Required Reversal
PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW BUYERS TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT DURING THE CONTINGENCY PERIOD, BUYERS’ ACTION TO RECOVER THE DOWN PAYMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DETAILED EXPLANATION OF HOW MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE CAN (SHOULD) BE PROVEN (SECOND DEPT).
AUTO REPAIR SHOP OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO HAD BORROWED THE CAR WHICH HAD BEEN REPAIRED FOR THE OWNER, SINCE NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED DEFENDANT REPAIR SHOP DID NOT NEED TO NEGATE THOSE FACOTRS IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

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

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE, A SEPARATE PAPER, WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED... ​ IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S...