Florio v. Newmark & Lewis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Florio v. Newmark & Lewis

248 A.D.2d 504, 669 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2582

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 504 (Florio v. Newmark & Lewis) 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

Florio v. Newmark & Lewis, 248 A.D.2d 504, 669 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated December 16, 1996, as, upon denying the plaintiffs cross motion to strike the answer, precluded the defendant from introducing any evidence at trial on the issue of liability, and granted the plaintiffs motion for an order of protection regarding certain discovery demands.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof which precluded the defendant from introducing any evidence at trial on the issue of liability; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

CPLR 3126 provides that when a party “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed * * * the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just”. However, “ ‘[i]n order to invoke the drastic remedy of a preclusion order which effectively results in the [505]*505striking of a pleading, the court must determine that the party’s failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful, deliberate or contumacious conduct or its equivalent’ ” (Parish Constr. Corp. v Franlo Tile, 215 AD2d 545, 546; Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524, 525). The burden of establishing that a failure or refusal to disclose was the result of willful deliberate and contumacious conduct rests with the party seeking the order of preclusion (see, Ahroni v City of New York, 175 AD2d 789). The record fails to establish such conduct. In fact, at the deposition of the injured plaintiff, his attorney acknowledged that the defendant had gone into bankruptcy and was “unable to present a witness for their examination”.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated December 16, 1996, as, upon denying the plaintiffs cross motion to strike the answer, precluded the defendant from introducing any evidence at trial on the issue of liability, and granted the plaintiffs motion for an order of protection regarding certain discovery demands.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof which precluded the defendant from introducing any evidence at trial on the issue of liability; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

CPLR 3126 provides that when a party “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed * * * the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just”. However, “ ‘[i]n order to invoke the drastic remedy of a preclusion order which effectively results in the [505]*505striking of a pleading, the court must determine that the party’s failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful, deliberate or contumacious conduct or its equivalent’ ” (Parish Constr. Corp. v Franlo Tile, 215 AD2d 545, 546; Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524, 525). The burden of establishing that a failure or refusal to disclose was the result of willful deliberate and contumacious conduct rests with the party seeking the order of preclusion (see, Ahroni v City of New York, 175 AD2d 789). The record fails to establish such conduct. In fact, at the deposition of the injured plaintiff, his attorney acknowledged that the defendant had gone into bankruptcy and was “unable to present a witness for their examination”.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 504, 669 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florio-v-newmark-lewis-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack