My Carpet, Inc. v. Bruce Supply Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

My Carpet, Inc. v. Bruce Supply Corp.

8 A.D.3d 248, 777 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7535

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

DecidedJune 1, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 248 (My Carpet, Inc. v. Bruce Supply Corp.) 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

My Carpet, Inc. v. Bruce Supply Corp., 8 A.D.3d 248, 777 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for loss of property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J), dated March 28, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion to strike the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s continued failure to comply with discovery requests, and a so-ordered stipulation to satisfy those requests, was willful, contumacious, and in bad faith (see Beneficial Mtge. Corp. v Lawrence, 5 AD3d 339 [2004]). Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking the plaintiffs complaint as a sanction pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) (see Yona v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 285 AD2d 460, 461 [2001]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for loss of property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J), dated March 28, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion to strike the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s continued failure to comply with discovery requests, and a so-ordered stipulation to satisfy those requests, was willful, contumacious, and in bad faith (see Beneficial Mtge. Corp. v Lawrence, 5 AD3d 339 [2004]). Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking the plaintiffs complaint as a sanction pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) (see Yona v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 285 AD2d 460, 461 [2001]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 248, 777 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/my-carpet-inc-v-bruce-supply-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack