Lerner v. Knot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lerner v. Knot

201 A.D.2d 466, 609 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1002

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 466 (Lerner v. Knot) 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

Lerner v. Knot, 201 A.D.2d 466, 609 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Gordian Knot appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), dated December 2, 1991, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike his answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts, with costs, the motion is denied, and the answer of the defendant Gordian Knot is reinstated.

In determining whether to impose the severe penalty of striking a party’s answer, the court must determine whether the evidence clearly shows that the party’s conduct was willful (see, Valmar Enters, v Rutigliano, 134 AD2d 250). The evidence contained in this exceedingly bare record fails to satisfy this standard. Moreover, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the failure on the part of the defendant-appellant to disclose certain requested documents resulted in substantial prejudice to their case (see, Jet Asphalt Corp. v Consolidated Edison Co., 114 AD2d 489). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, 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, etc., the defendant Gordian Knot appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), dated December 2, 1991, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike his answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts, with costs, the motion is denied, and the answer of the defendant Gordian Knot is reinstated.

In determining whether to impose the severe penalty of striking a party’s answer, the court must determine whether the evidence clearly shows that the party’s conduct was willful (see, Valmar Enters, v Rutigliano, 134 AD2d 250). The evidence contained in this exceedingly bare record fails to satisfy this standard. Moreover, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the failure on the part of the defendant-appellant to disclose certain requested documents resulted in substantial prejudice to their case (see, Jet Asphalt Corp. v Consolidated Edison Co., 114 AD2d 489). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 466, 609 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lerner-v-knot-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack