Carter v. Baldwin Transportation Corp.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered May 9, 1994, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer of defendants Baldwin Transportation Corp. and William E. Seabrock, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The IAS Court properly determined that defendants substantially complied with the preliminary conference order and plaintiffs demand for discovery and inspection and, therefore, properly denied plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answer. Actions should be decided on their merits whenever possible and the harsh penalty of striking pleadings should only be imposed where the failure to comply was willful, contumacious or due to bad faith (Bassett v Bando Sangsa Co., 103 AD2d 728), circumstances not presented herein. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
215 A.D.2d 256 (Carter v. Baldwin Transportation Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.