Brady v. County of Nassau

234 A.D.2d 408, 650 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13076
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 16, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 408 (Brady v. County of Nassau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brady v. County of Nassau, 234 A.D.2d 408, 650 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13076 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for false arrest, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), entered November 15, 1995, which (1) granted the motion of the defendant 28-25 South, Inc., pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2) granted the motion of the defendant Lisaann Stationery, Inc., d/b/a V & O Enterprises, Ltd. for an order of preclusion against the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Where a plaintiff’s conduct is found to be willful and contumacious, it is within the court’s discretion to grant either dismissal of the complaint or an order of preclusion (CPLR 3126; see, Zletz v Wetansen, 67 NY2d 711; Rivers v Embassy Club, 207 AD2d 876). Moreover, the absence of any excuse for the delay in responding to discovery demands, and the delaying party’s failure to object to the demands, supports an inference that the failure to comply was willful (see, Mills v Ducille, 170 AD2d 657; Brandi v Chan, 151 AD2d 853; Anteri v NRS Constr. Corp., 117 AD2d 696).

The record provides ample reason to conclude that the plaintiffs exhibited willful and contumacious conduct in failing to timely comply with both the repeated demands for disclosure and with the court-ordered discovery schedule. The plaintiffs did not offer any reasonable excuse for their noncompliance (see, Rosner v Blue Channel Corp., 131 AD2d 654, 655). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the respective motions to dismiss and to preclude (see, Rivers v Embassy Club, 207 AD2d 876, supra; Kirkland v Community Hosp., 187 AD2d 566; Cataldo v Budget Rent A Car., 170 AD2d 475). Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bellevue v. Gustav
2020 NY Slip Op 4448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Incorporated Village of Cove Neck v. Petrara
47 A.D.3d 885 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Frost Line Refrigeration, Inc. v. Frunzi
18 A.D.3d 701 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Cafaro v. Emergency Services Holding, Inc.
11 A.D.3d 496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Zegarelli v. Hughes
303 A.D.2d 916 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Jaffe v. Hubbard
299 A.D.2d 395 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Nowak v. Veira
289 A.D.2d 383 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Poulas v. U-Haul International Inc.
288 A.D.2d 202 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Wilson v. West Hempstead Generals Football Club, Inc.
286 A.D.2d 438 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Bodine v. Ladjevardi
284 A.D.2d 351 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Polanco v. Duran
278 A.D.2d 397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Settembrini v. Settembrini
270 A.D.2d 408 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Cronin v. Perry
269 A.D.2d 351 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Gorokhova v. Belulovich
267 A.D.2d 202 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Pearl v. Pearl
266 A.D.2d 366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Robustelli v. Robustelli
262 A.D.2d 390 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
DeJulio v. Wulf
260 A.D.2d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Castrignano v. Flynn
255 A.D.2d 352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Rankin v. Miller
252 A.D.2d 863 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Barrowman v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
252 A.D.2d 946 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
234 A.D.2d 408, 650 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brady-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-1996.