Kubacka v. Town of North Hempstead

240 A.D.2d 374, 657 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5781
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 2, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by42 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 374 (Kubacka v. Town of North Hempstead) 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
Kubacka v. Town of North Hempstead, 240 A.D.2d 374, 657 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In a negligence action [375]*375to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mc-Cabe, J.), dated May 30, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability after striking the defendant’s answer pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A court may, inter alia, strike "pleadings or parts thereof’ as a sanction against a party who "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed” (CPLR 3126 [3]). While the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter of discretion (Soto v City of Long Beach, 197 AD2d 615, 616; Spira v Antoine, 191 AD2d 219), "the drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith” (Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663, 664; see, Lestingi v City of New York, 209 AD2d 384).

In the instant case, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in striking the appellant’s answer, following the failure to comply with an order dated December 6, 1995, which directed the appellant to serve and file an amended bill of particulars and responses to combined demands within 10 days or face the penalty of having its answer stricken. The plaintiff satisfied her initial burden of proving willfulness by showing that the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with court orders directing disclosure, and the appellant did not offer a reasonable excuse for such repeated failures (see, Herrera v City of New York, 238 AD2d 475; Porreco v Selway, 225 AD2d 752; DeGennaro v Robinson Textiles, 224 AD2d 574). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

HALL, MITCHELL T. v. INTEGRITY REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES, I
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Hall v. Integrity Real Estate Properties, Inc.
124 A.D.3d 1270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Northfield Insurance v. Model Towing & Recovery
63 A.D.3d 808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Dinstber v. GEICO Insurance
32 A.D.3d 893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Morano v. Westchester Paving & Sealing Corp.
7 A.D.3d 495 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Joseph v. Iannace
6 A.D.3d 502 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Beizer v. Schwartzben
1 A.D.3d 301 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Robinson v. Pediatric Associates of Irwin Avenue
307 A.D.2d 1029 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Vanalst v. City of New York
302 A.D.2d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Hollymount Corp. v. Myung J. Park Corp.
300 A.D.2d 444 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Penafiel v. Puretz
298 A.D.2d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Castelle v. Evangelista
298 A.D.2d 347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Dragotta v. Southampton Hospital
295 A.D.2d 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Ordonez v. Guerra
295 A.D.2d 325 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Dacey v. Horror Cafe, Inc.
293 A.D.2d 511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
D'Ecclesiis v. Manna
289 A.D.2d 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Rijos v. Schwab
289 A.D.2d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Brandes v. Pirnie-Baker
288 A.D.2d 413 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Poulas v. U-Haul International Inc.
288 A.D.2d 202 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Kim v. Harrison
287 A.D.2d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 A.D.2d 374, 657 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kubacka-v-town-of-north-hempstead-nyappdiv-1997.