Gruber v. Central Truck Equipment, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gruber v. Central Truck Equipment, Inc.

298 A.D.2d 360, 751 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9370

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 360 (Gruber v. Central Truck Equipment, Inc.) 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

Gruber v. Central Truck Equipment, Inc., 298 A.D.2d 360, 751 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated August 21, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that the striking of a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure should be granted only where the conduct of the resisting party is shown to be willful, contumacious, or in bad faith. The plaintiffs’ repeated failure to comply with orders of the Supreme Court directing disclosure, and failure to appear at multiple court conferences, support an inference of willful and contumacious conduct. Thus, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint (see Brandes v Pirnie-Baker, J.V., 288 AD2d 413; Ranfort v Peak Tours, 250 AD2d 747; Frias v Fortini, 240 AD2d 467; Yin Kuen Chan Tang v Hong Kong Chinese Herbal Co., 235 AD2d 282). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Rivera, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated August 21, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that the striking of a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure should be granted only where the conduct of the resisting party is shown to be willful, contumacious, or in bad faith. The plaintiffs’ repeated failure to comply with orders of the Supreme Court directing disclosure, and failure to appear at multiple court conferences, support an inference of willful and contumacious conduct. Thus, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint (see Brandes v Pirnie-Baker, J.V., 288 AD2d 413; Ranfort v Peak Tours, 250 AD2d 747; Frias v Fortini, 240 AD2d 467; Yin Kuen Chan Tang v Hong Kong Chinese Herbal Co., 235 AD2d 282). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 360, 751 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gruber-v-central-truck-equipment-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack