Herman v. Herman

134 A.D.3d 442, 19 N.Y.S.3d 741

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 15, 2015, and two separate orders same court and Justice, entered July 13, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the parties’ briefs, struck defendant/third-party plaintiff Julian Maurice Herman’s answer, counterclaims, cross claims and third-party claims, and granted a default judgment against him, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Our review of the extensive record of discovery disputes and motion practice supports a finding that defendant/third-party plaintiff Julian Maurice Herman’s (Maurice) repeated noncompliance with the court’s many discovery orders was “dilatory, evasive, obstructive and ultimately contumacious” (CDR Creances S.A.S. v Cohen, 23 NY3d 307, 318 [2014]). It prejudiced plaintiffs “by impeding [their] ability to obtain true discovery and [by] forcing [them] to spend enormous amounts of money and time to prove [their] case” (id. at 323), and was an unnecessary drain on limited court resources. Maurice’s misconduct was not isolated, and he made little or no good faith attempt to correct it (id.). A lesser sanction would not have deterred Maurice’s continued discovery violations (id.). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias and Gische, JJ.