B.E.N. Trading Corp. v. Shirley Import, Inc.
68 A.D.3d 629, 890 N.Y.2d 323
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 22, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
[630] Defendants’ failure to offer a reasonable excuse for their noncompliance with discovery demands, court orders and the court’s rules gives rise to an inference of willful and contumacious conduct (Siegman v Rosen, 270 AD2d 14, 15 [2000]). The striking of their answer and third-party complaint was a proper exercise of judicial discretion in light of such conduct (CPLR 3126; see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]). Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
B.E.N. Trading Corp. v. Shirley Import, Inc., 68 A.D.3d 629, 890 N.Y.2d 323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).
68 A.D.3d 629 (B.E.N. Trading Corp. v. Shirley Import, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Fish & Richardson, P.C. v. Schindler
75 A.D.3d 219 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)