Linwood Roofing & Contracting Co. v. Olit Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Linwood Roofing & Contracting Co. v. Olit Associates

123 A.D.2d 840, 507 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60961

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 840 (Linwood Roofing & Contracting Co. v. Olit Associates) 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

Linwood Roofing & Contracting Co. v. Olit Associates, 123 A.D.2d 840, 507 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien against real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated March 14, 1985, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ answer and counterclaim and granted a judgment of foreclosure to the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The striking of an answer and/or counterclaim for the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery is an extreme and drastic penalty which should not be invoked unless it is clearly demonstrated that the default was deliberate and contumacious (see, Cinelli v Radcliffe, 35 AD2d 829; Battaglia v Hofmeister, 100 AD2d 833). Under the circumstances of this case, where the defendants long engaged in dilatory, evasive and obstructive conduct (see, Sony Corp. v Savemart, Inc., 59 AD2d 676), Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting the requested relief. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien against real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated March 14, 1985, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ answer and counterclaim and granted a judgment of foreclosure to the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The striking of an answer and/or counterclaim for the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery is an extreme and drastic penalty which should not be invoked unless it is clearly demonstrated that the default was deliberate and contumacious (see, Cinelli v Radcliffe, 35 AD2d 829; Battaglia v Hofmeister, 100 AD2d 833). Under the circumstances of this case, where the defendants long engaged in dilatory, evasive and obstructive conduct (see, Sony Corp. v Savemart, Inc., 59 AD2d 676), Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting the requested relief. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 840, 507 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linwood-roofing-contracting-co-v-olit-associates-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack