Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. v. Estate of Turner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. v. Estate of Turner

82 A.D.3d 490, 918 N.Y.2d 413

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 490 (Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. v. Estate of Turner) 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

Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. v. Estate of Turner, 82 A.D.3d 490, 918 N.Y.2d 413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in sanctioning defendants. Defendants’ willful and contumacious refusal to cooperate with the discovery process can be inferred from two years of noncompliance with plaintiffs requests and defendants’ failure to comply with three court orders directing defendants to produce documents and warning them of sanctions (see Glasburgh v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 193 AD2d 441 [1993]; Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler, 75 AD3d 219 [2010]).

Defendants’ argument that plaintiffs failure to include an affirmation of good faith pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7 should be fatal to its cross motion for sanctions is unavailing. The record indicates that plaintiff attempted, both under the auspices of the court and out of court, to reach an accommodation with defendants. “Under the unique circumstances of this case,” any further attempt to resolve the dispute nonjudicially would have been futile (see Carrasquillo v Netsloh Realty Corp., 279 AD2d 334, 334 [2001]).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, AbdusSalaam and Román, JJ.

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

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in sanctioning defendants. Defendants’ willful and contumacious refusal to cooperate with the discovery process can be inferred from two years of noncompliance with plaintiffs requests and defendants’ failure to comply with three court orders directing defendants to produce documents and warning them of sanctions (see Glasburgh v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 193 AD2d 441 [1993]; Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler, 75 AD3d 219 [2010]).

Defendants’ argument that plaintiffs failure to include an affirmation of good faith pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7 should be fatal to its cross motion for sanctions is unavailing. The record indicates that plaintiff attempted, both under the auspices of the court and out of court, to reach an accommodation with defendants. “Under the unique circumstances of this case,” any further attempt to resolve the dispute nonjudicially would have been futile (see Carrasquillo v Netsloh Realty Corp., 279 AD2d 334, 334 [2001]).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, AbdusSalaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 490, 918 N.Y.2d 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northern-leasing-systems-inc-v-estate-of-turner-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack