Rampersad v. New York City Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rampersad v. New York City Department of Education

30 A.D.3d 218, 817 N.Y.S.2d 20

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

DecidedJune 13, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 218 (Rampersad v. New York City Department of Education) 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

Rampersad v. New York City Department of Education, 30 A.D.3d 218, 817 N.Y.S.2d 20 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul A. Victor, J.), entered December 5, 2005, which struck defendants’ answer for failure to comply with a conditional, self-executing order, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 18, 2005, which directed the production of certain enumerated discovery, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

To the extent necessary, we deem the notice of appeal to be a motion for leave to appeal (CPLR 5701 [c]), and grant such leave. The record is sufficient to permit review of the motion court’s findings even if its order, entered December 5, 2005, was not made pursuant to a motion on notice.

A self-executing order having been issued, requiring production of a witness on a date certain, defendants were cognizant of the repercussions of their failure to produce. Rather than produce a witness, or contact the court for a protective order for [219]*219their anticipated noncompliance, defendants simply took no action. Notwithstanding their claimed good faith belief that the deposition of their witness should await the outcome of their appeal of the January 13, 2005 order compelling document production, defendants took this position at their peril. Their conduct of flouting the court order, without good cause and without contacting the court for relief therefrom, was willful and contumacious conduct, warranting sanction. “If the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity” (Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul A. Victor, J.), entered December 5, 2005, which struck defendants’ answer for failure to comply with a conditional, self-executing order, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 18, 2005, which directed the production of certain enumerated discovery, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

To the extent necessary, we deem the notice of appeal to be a motion for leave to appeal (CPLR 5701 [c]), and grant such leave. The record is sufficient to permit review of the motion court’s findings even if its order, entered December 5, 2005, was not made pursuant to a motion on notice.

A self-executing order having been issued, requiring production of a witness on a date certain, defendants were cognizant of the repercussions of their failure to produce. Rather than produce a witness, or contact the court for a protective order for [219]*219their anticipated noncompliance, defendants simply took no action. Notwithstanding their claimed good faith belief that the deposition of their witness should await the outcome of their appeal of the January 13, 2005 order compelling document production, defendants took this position at their peril. Their conduct of flouting the court order, without good cause and without contacting the court for relief therefrom, was willful and contumacious conduct, warranting sanction. “If the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity” (Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 218, 817 N.Y.S.2d 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rampersad-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack