Board of Mgrs. of the Hampton House Condominium v. IPark U, Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 31187(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedApril 8, 2024
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 31187(U) (Board of Mgrs. of the Hampton House Condominium v. IPark U, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Board of Mgrs. of the Hampton House Condominium v. IPark U, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 31187(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

Board of Mgrs. of the Hampton House Condominium v IPark U, Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 31187(U) April 8, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 158771/2021 Judge: Mary V. Rosado Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 158771/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice ·------------X INDEX NO. 158771/2021 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE HAMPTON HOUSE MOTION DATE 12/19/2023 CONDOMINIUM

Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002

-v- DECISION + ORDER ON lPARK U, INC., MOTION Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 were read on this motion to/for STRIKE PLEADINGS

Upon the foregoing documents, there being no opposition and good cause having been

shown, Plaintiff Board of Managers of the Hampton House Condominium's ("Plaintiff')

December 19, 2023 motion for an Order striking Defendant !Park U, Inc's ("Defendant")

December 13, 2021 Answer (NSYCEF Doc. 35) and granting default judgment against Defendant

and in favor of Plaintiff for the relief sought in Plaintiff's Verified Complaint (NYSCEF Doc. 34)

is granted.

I. Background

Pursuant to the May 13, 2023 Preliminary Conference Order Plaintiff and Defendant were

directed to serve any demands for discovery and inspection on or before July 15, 2023, and to

serve responses to those demands "as per CPLR" (NYSCEF Doc. 24). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed

a Notice of Demand for Discovery and Inspection on July 24, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. 36). Pursuant

to CPLR 3120(2), Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Discovery and Inspection Notice was to be

served along with any responsive documents on or before August 14, 2023. After Defendant failed

158771/2021 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE HAMPTON HOUSE CONDOMINIUM vs. !PARK U, Page 1 of 5 INC. Motion No. 002

1 of 5 [* 1] INDEX NO. 158771/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

to respond to Plaintiffs Discovery and Inspection Notice by August 14, 2023, Defendant sent

Plaintiff good faith emails on August 15, 2023 and August 16, 2023 seeking a response to the

Discovery and Inspection Notice (NYSCEF Doc. 33 at 3). Plaintiff did not respond to either of

Defendant's August emails (NSYCEF Doc. 33 at 3).

Subsequently, a Compliance Conference Order dated September 20, 2023 ordered

Defendant, inter alia, to respond to Plaintiffs July 24, 2023 Discovery and Inspection Notice by

October 20, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. 27). Despite this Order, Defendant did not serve any response

to the Discovery and Inspection Notice on or before October 20, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. 33 at ,i 9).

On October 24, 2023 Plaintiffs counsel sent another email to Defendant's counsel seeking

a response to Plaintiffs Discovery and Inspection Notice, and if a response was not received that

Plaintiff would seek to schedule a pre-motion discovery conference (NYSCEF Doc. 33 at ,i 9).

On November 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for leave to file a discovery motion in this

action (NYSCEF Docs. 28-29). On November 3, 2023, the Court issued a Decision and Order

conditionally granting Plaintiff leave to make a discovery motion in the event that Defendant "fails

to file a response to Plaintiffs First Notice of Demand for Discovery and Inspection, dated July

24, 2023 ... by December 1, 2023" (NYSCEF Doc. 30).

To date, Defendant has failed to provide any response to Plaintiffs Discovery and

Inspection Notice. Accordingly, Plaintiff commenced the instant motion on December 19, 2023

seeking an Order striking Defendant's December 13, 2021 Answer (NSYCEF Doc. 35) and

granting default judgment against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff for the relief sought in

Plaintiffs Verified Complaint (NYSCEF Doc. 34). Defendant has not filed any opposition to

Plaintiffs motion.

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank]

158771/2021 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE HAMPTON HOUSE CONDOMINIUM vs. IPARK U, Page 2 of 5 INC. Motion No. 002

2 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 158771/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

II. Discussion

A. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer and Enter Default Judgment against Defendant, is Granted

CPLR 3126(3) authorizes a court to strike pleadings where a party "refused to obey an

order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have

been disclosed." The First Department has held that the repeated violation of discovery orders

constitutes a pattern of noncompliance giving rise "to an inference of willful and contumacious

conduct" warranting the imposition of sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 (Cooper v Metropolitan

Transp. Auth., 186 AD3d 1150 [1st Dept 2020]).

Here, Defendant has failed to provide the discovery ordered by the May 13, 2023

Preliminary Conference Order (NYSCEF Doc. 24), the September 20, 2023 Compliance

Conference Order (NYSCEF Doc. 27) and the Decision and Order dated November 3, 2023

(NYSCEF Doc. 30), and failed to respond to no less than three good faith letters sent by Plaintiffs

counsel. In light of the foregoing, Defendant is held in default, and its answer is stricken.

B. Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant for the Relief Requested m Plaintiffs Complaint is Proper

It is well settled that "[w]hen an answer is stricken and a default entered, the defendant

'admits all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability, but

does not admit the plaintiffs conclusion as to damages' ... unless the damages are for a sum which

can be made certain by computation" (Curiale v Adra Ins. Co., 88 NY2d 268,279 [1996] quoting

Rokina Optical Co. v Camera King, Inc., 63 NY2d 728, 730 [1984]). The Court of Appeals has

held that the term "sum certain" "contemplates a situation in which, once liability has been

established, there can be no dispute as to the amount due, as in actions on money judgments and

158771/2021 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE HAMPTON HOUSE CONDOMINIUM vs. IPARK U, Page 3 of 5 INC. Motion No. 002

3 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 158771/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

negotiable instruments" (Reynolds Secur., Inc. v Underwriters Bank & Trust Co. 44 NY2d 568,

572 [1978]).

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks a monetary judgment of $200,000.00

with prejudgment interest (NYSCEF Doc. 34 at ,i 13). In accordance with the above outlined

criteria, the $200,000.00 sum sought by Plaintiff constitutes a sum certain. Accordingly, an inquest

is not needed, and Plaintiffs motion for a judgment on default in the sum of $200,000.00, with

prejudgment interest, is granted against Defendant.

Accordingly, it is hereby,

ORDERED that Plaintiff Board of Manager of the Hampton House Condominium's

December 19, 2023 motion for an Order striking Defendant !Park U, Inc.'s December 13, 2021

Answer and granting a default judgment against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff for the relief

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Curiale v. Ardra Insurance
667 N.E.2d 313 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)
Reynolds Securities, Inc. v. Underwriters Bank & Trust Co.
378 N.E.2d 106 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Cooper v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.
2020 NY Slip Op 05132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Rokina Optical Co. v. Camera King, Inc.
469 N.E.2d 518 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 31187(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-mgrs-of-the-hampton-house-condominium-v-ipark-u-inc-nysupctnewyork-2024.