Hollymount Corp. v. Myung J. Park Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hollymount Corp. v. Myung J. Park Corp.

300 A.D.2d 444, 751 N.Y.S.2d 420

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 444 (Hollymount Corp. v. Myung J. Park Corp.) 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

Hollymount Corp. v. Myung J. Park Corp., 300 A.D.2d 444, 751 N.Y.S.2d 420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover payment due under the terms of a promissory note and personal guaranty, the defendants appeal from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 22, 2002, which, inter alia, denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that “where a party disobeys a court order, and by his or her conduct frustrates the disclosure scheme provided by the CPLR, dismissal of a pleading is within the broad discretion of the trial court” (Castrignano v Flynn, 255 AD2d 352, 353; see CPLR 3126 [3]; Ranfort v Peak Tours, 250 AD2d 747; Frias v Fortini, 240 AD2d 467; Kubacka v Town of N. Hempstead, 240 AD2d 374). The drastic remedy of striking a pleading is inappropriate, however, absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see CPLR 3126 [3]; Barth v City of New York, 294 AD2d 386, 387; Kaplan v Emmett, 265 AD2d 307).

Here, such a showing is absent. Thus the court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint (see Parente v New York Times Co., 277 AD2d 438; Kaplan v Emmett, supra; Garcia v First Spanish Baptist Church of Islip, 259 AD2d 465).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover payment due under the terms of a promissory note and personal guaranty, the defendants appeal from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 22, 2002, which, inter alia, denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that “where a party disobeys a court order, and by his or her conduct frustrates the disclosure scheme provided by the CPLR, dismissal of a pleading is within the broad discretion of the trial court” (Castrignano v Flynn, 255 AD2d 352, 353; see CPLR 3126 [3]; Ranfort v Peak Tours, 250 AD2d 747; Frias v Fortini, 240 AD2d 467; Kubacka v Town of N. Hempstead, 240 AD2d 374). The drastic remedy of striking a pleading is inappropriate, however, absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see CPLR 3126 [3]; Barth v City of New York, 294 AD2d 386, 387; Kaplan v Emmett, 265 AD2d 307).

Here, such a showing is absent. Thus the court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint (see Parente v New York Times Co., 277 AD2d 438; Kaplan v Emmett, supra; Garcia v First Spanish Baptist Church of Islip, 259 AD2d 465).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 444, 751 N.Y.S.2d 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollymount-corp-v-myung-j-park-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack