Netti v. Auburn Enlarged City School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Netti v. Auburn Enlarged City School District

309 A.D.2d 1143, 764 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10154

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 1143 (Netti v. Auburn Enlarged City School District) 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

Netti v. Auburn Enlarged City School District, 309 A.D.2d 1143, 764 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Corning, J.), entered October 18, 2002, that denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer for failure to comply with the court’s prior order directing discovery. “[T]he harsh remedy of striking an answer should be granted only where it is conclusively shown that the discovery default was deliberate or contumacious” (Gadley v U.S. Sugar Co., 259 AD2d 1041, 1042 [1999]; see Sloniger v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 306 AD2d 842 [2003]). Plaintiffs failed to make such a conclusive showing. Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Corning, J.), entered October 18, 2002, that denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer for failure to comply with the court’s prior order directing discovery. “[T]he harsh remedy of striking an answer should be granted only where it is conclusively shown that the discovery default was deliberate or contumacious” (Gadley v U.S. Sugar Co., 259 AD2d 1041, 1042 [1999]; see Sloniger v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 306 AD2d 842 [2003]). Plaintiffs failed to make such a conclusive showing. Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 1143, 764 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/netti-v-auburn-enlarged-city-school-district-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack