Hill v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hill v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives

256 A.D.2d 31, 680 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12918

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 31 (Hill v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives) 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

Hill v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives, 256 A.D.2d 31, 680 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered May 28, 1998, which, after an evidentiary hearing, denied plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer of defendants-respondents Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives and Insignia Financial Group, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In ruling upon plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants-respondents’ pleadings, the motion court properly inquired, not merely as to whether there had been spoliation of evidence, but also as to whether defendants-respondents’ failure to comply with discovery orders had been willful, contumacious, or effected in bad faith (see, Orlando v Arcade Cleaning Corp., 253 AD2d 362; cf., Squitieri v City of New York, 248 AD2d 201). The court’s conclusion that plaintiff had not met her burden as movant (see, Forman v Jamesway Corp., 175 AD2d 514, 515) to demonstrate defendants-respondents’ willful noncompliance with their discovery obligations, and accordingly had not demonstrated her right to the drastic relief requested, did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Dauria v City of New York, 127 AD2d 459, 460). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered May 28, 1998, which, after an evidentiary hearing, denied plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer of defendants-respondents Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives and Insignia Financial Group, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In ruling upon plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants-respondents’ pleadings, the motion court properly inquired, not merely as to whether there had been spoliation of evidence, but also as to whether defendants-respondents’ failure to comply with discovery orders had been willful, contumacious, or effected in bad faith (see, Orlando v Arcade Cleaning Corp., 253 AD2d 362; cf., Squitieri v City of New York, 248 AD2d 201). The court’s conclusion that plaintiff had not met her burden as movant (see, Forman v Jamesway Corp., 175 AD2d 514, 515) to demonstrate defendants-respondents’ willful noncompliance with their discovery obligations, and accordingly had not demonstrated her right to the drastic relief requested, did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Dauria v City of New York, 127 AD2d 459, 460). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 31, 680 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-douglas-elliman-gibbons-ives-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack