Estate of Ort v. Ort

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estate of Ort v. Ort

41 A.D.3d 777, 839 N.Y.S.2d 207

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

DecidedJune 26, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 777 (Estate of Ort v. Ort) 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

Estate of Ort v. Ort, 41 A.D.3d 777, 839 N.Y.S.2d 207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[778]*778In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), entered July 8, 2005, which granted the defendants’ separate motions pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ separate motions pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint. Although dismissal of a complaint is a drastic remedy for a plaintiffs failure to make disclosure, it is warranted where that party’s conduct is shown to be willful or contumacious (see Royal Caterers, LLC v Marine Midland, 8 AD3d 549, 550 [2004]; Alto v Gilman Mgt. Corp., 7 AD3d 650 [2004]; Vanalst v City of New York, 302 AD2d 515, 516 [2003]). In this case, the plaintiff affirmatively stated that it would not comply with the several court orders directing it to provide the requested disclosure. This remained so, even after the Supreme Court denied its request to preclude the defendants from obtaining the disputed documents. In the absence of a reasonable excuse for the plaintiffs failures to comply with duly-issued court orders, and its continued noncompliance, the appropriate sanction was to dismiss the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

[778]*778In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), entered July 8, 2005, which granted the defendants’ separate motions pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ separate motions pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint. Although dismissal of a complaint is a drastic remedy for a plaintiffs failure to make disclosure, it is warranted where that party’s conduct is shown to be willful or contumacious (see Royal Caterers, LLC v Marine Midland, 8 AD3d 549, 550 [2004]; Alto v Gilman Mgt. Corp., 7 AD3d 650 [2004]; Vanalst v City of New York, 302 AD2d 515, 516 [2003]). In this case, the plaintiff affirmatively stated that it would not comply with the several court orders directing it to provide the requested disclosure. This remained so, even after the Supreme Court denied its request to preclude the defendants from obtaining the disputed documents. In the absence of a reasonable excuse for the plaintiffs failures to comply with duly-issued court orders, and its continued noncompliance, the appropriate sanction was to dismiss the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 777, 839 N.Y.S.2d 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-ort-v-ort-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack