Grisales v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grisales v. City of New York

292 A.D.2d 419, 738 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2489

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs Elkin Grisales and Rosa Grisales appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated May 2, 2001, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer or preclude them from offering any evidence in support of their position at trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 is generally a matter left to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, and the harsh penalty of striking a pleading, or preclusion, which effectively results in the striking of a pleading, is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, Guiliano v Carlisle, 286 AD2d 417; Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524).. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion, as they failed to make the required showing (see, La-Manna v Cahn Woolen Co., 249 AD2d 451).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, 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, the plaintiffs Elkin Grisales and Rosa Grisales appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated May 2, 2001, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer or preclude them from offering any evidence in support of their position at trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 is generally a matter left to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, and the harsh penalty of striking a pleading, or preclusion, which effectively results in the striking of a pleading, is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, Guiliano v Carlisle, 286 AD2d 417; Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524).. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion, as they failed to make the required showing (see, La-Manna v Cahn Woolen Co., 249 AD2d 451).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Grisales v. City of New York, 292 A.D.2d 419, 738 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

292 A.D.2d 419 (Grisales v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related