Racer v. Mazel, USA LLC

2017 NY Slip Op 3626, 150 A.D.3d 437, 51 N.Y.S.3d 418

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered April 14, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer for failure to comply with discovery demands, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record establishes willful and contumacious behavior on defendant’s part warranting the sanction of striking the answer (see generally Rosario v New York City Hous. Auth., 272 AD2d 105 [1st Dept 2000]). Defense counsel’s affirmation in opposition to the motion demonstrates that defendant ceased cooperating in the defense of this action by failing to respond to counsel’s communications regarding the necessity of provid ing the outstanding discovery.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.