Houghton v. Piperaro

Opinion

Houghton v Piperaro

2026 NY Slip Op 05290

September 16, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Kimberly Houghton, et al., appellants,

v

John Piperaro, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on September 16, 2026

2023-08152, (Index No. 31093/20)

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

Paul Wooten

Laurence L. Love

Susan Quirk, JJ.

Redmond Law Firm PLLC, New York, NY (Cornelius Redmond of counsel), for appellants.

Goldberg & Segalla LLP, White Plains, NY (Zachary D. Oliva of counsel), for respondent John Piperaro.

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Harrison, NY (Merryl F. Weiner of counsel), for respondent Horizon Land Management.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Amy S. Puerto, J.), dated July 24, 2023. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the plaintiffs from offering certain evidence at trial or with respect to any motion or proceeding in the action.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, and those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the plaintiffs from offering certain evidence at trial or with respect to any motion or proceeding in the action are denied.

In February 2020, the plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that they allegedly sustained due to the defendants' negligence in failing to maintain and repair real property that the defendants leased to the plaintiffs. During discovery, the defendants separately moved, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the plaintiffs from offering certain evidence at trial or with respect to any motion or proceeding in the action. The plaintiffs opposed the motions. In an order dated July 24, 2023, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted those branches of the defendants' separate motions. The plaintiffs appeal.

"'Pursuant to CPLR 3126, a court may impose discovery sanctions, including the striking of a pleading or preclusion of evidence, where a party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed'" (Guardado v K.B.G. Commercial, Inc., 209 AD3d 721, 722 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Aha Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 110 AD3d 1019, 1019). "Although the motion court has broad discretion to determine the nature and degree of the sanction to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126, '[b]efore a court invokes the drastic remedy of precluding a party from offering evidence at trial, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered [*2]discovery was willful and contumacious'" (Sweet Constructors, LLC v Wallkill Med. Dev., LLC, 188 AD3d 1279, 1280, quoting Giraldo v Highmark Ind., LLC, 175 AD3d 654, 654-655). "'The willful or contumacious character of a party's conduct can be inferred from the party's repeated failure to comply with discovery demands or orders without a reasonable excuse'" (Guardado v K.B.G. Commercial, Inc., 209 AD3d at 722, quoting Aha Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 110 AD3d at 1019).

Here, the defendants failed to make a clear showing that the plaintiffs' failure to comply with discovery demands was willful or contumacious (see Irving v Four Seasons Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., 199 AD3d 906; Sweet Constructors, LLC v Wallkill Med. Dev., LLC, 188 AD3d at 1280). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the plaintiffs from offering certain evidence at trial or with respect to any motion or proceeding in the action.

The remaining contention of the defendant John Piperaro need not be reached in light of our determination.

DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, LOVE and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court