Cps 227 LLC v. Brody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cps 227 LLC v. Brody

135 A.D.3d 607, 22 N.Y.S.3d 871

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 26, 2016

Docket654378/13 -18 17 16

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 135 A.D.3d 607 (Cps 227 LLC v. Brody) 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

Cps 227 LLC v. Brody, 135 A.D.3d 607, 22 N.Y.S.3d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered June 9, 2015, in plaintiff’s favor against defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 4, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce a conditional discovery order by striking defendant’s answer and to award him a default judgment against defendant, and for attorneys’ fees and costs, and denied as moot defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the aforesaid judgment.

*608 Supreme Court properly struck defendant’s answer based on its finding that he failed to comply with a conditional order requiring compliance with discovery demands, and his pattern of disobeying discovery orders (see Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler, 75 AD3d 219 [1st Dept 2010]). It also properly awarded plaintiff its attorneys’ fees and costs as a result of defendant’s discovery abuses. As plaintiff was entitled to have the answer struck and a default judgment entered on the complaint, the court properly awarded the sum alleged in the complaint without ordering an inquest, and correctly declined to consider the merits of defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment (see AWL Indus., Inc. v QBE Ins. Corp., 65 AD3d 904 [1st Dept 2009]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Saxe and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered June 9, 2015, in plaintiff’s favor against defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 4, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce a conditional discovery order by striking defendant’s answer and to award him a default judgment against defendant, and for attorneys’ fees and costs, and denied as moot defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the aforesaid judgment.

*608 Supreme Court properly struck defendant’s answer based on its finding that he failed to comply with a conditional order requiring compliance with discovery demands, and his pattern of disobeying discovery orders (see Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler, 75 AD3d 219 [1st Dept 2010]). It also properly awarded plaintiff its attorneys’ fees and costs as a result of defendant’s discovery abuses. As plaintiff was entitled to have the answer struck and a default judgment entered on the complaint, the court properly awarded the sum alleged in the complaint without ordering an inquest, and correctly declined to consider the merits of defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment (see AWL Indus., Inc. v QBE Ins. Corp., 65 AD3d 904 [1st Dept 2009]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Saxe and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.3d 607, 22 N.Y.S.3d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cps-227-llc-v-brody-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack