La Valle v. City of New York Department of Sanitation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

La Valle v. City of New York Department of Sanitation

240 A.D.2d 639, 659 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6804

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 23, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Heil Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated May 13, 1996, as denied that branch of its motion which was to strike the cross claim of the defendant City of New York Department of Sanitation against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to strike the cross claim of the defendant City of New York Department of Sanitation against the appellant is granted.

It is apparent from the record in this case that the defendant City of New York Department of Sanitation has adopted [640] "a pattern of partially complying” with demands for disclosure, "only after being directed to do so by court order”, resulting in a delay in the completion of discovery of over three years (Cauley v Long Is. R. R. Co., 234 AD2d 252).

Consequently, on this third motion by the appellant pursuant to CPLR 3126, in this third order dealing with the failure of the City of New York Department of Sanitation to comply with disclosure demands, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to strike the cross claim of the City of New York Department of Sanitation against it. The conduct of the City of New York Department of Sanitation in frustrating disclosure was willful, justifying such relief (see, Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663, 664). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Heil Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated May 13, 1996, as denied that branch of its motion which was to strike the cross claim of the defendant City of New York Department of Sanitation against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to strike the cross claim of the defendant City of New York Department of Sanitation against the appellant is granted.

It is apparent from the record in this case that the defendant City of New York Department of Sanitation has adopted [640] "a pattern of partially complying” with demands for disclosure, "only after being directed to do so by court order”, resulting in a delay in the completion of discovery of over three years (Cauley v Long Is. R. R. Co., 234 AD2d 252).

Consequently, on this third motion by the appellant pursuant to CPLR 3126, in this third order dealing with the failure of the City of New York Department of Sanitation to comply with disclosure demands, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to strike the cross claim of the City of New York Department of Sanitation against it. The conduct of the City of New York Department of Sanitation in frustrating disclosure was willful, justifying such relief (see, Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663, 664). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

La Valle v. City of New York Department of Sanitation, 240 A.D.2d 639, 659 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6804 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

240 A.D.2d 639 (La Valle v. City of New York Department of Sanitation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related