Robbins v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robbins v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.

224 A.D.2d 912, 638 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1511

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

DecidedFebruary 29, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 912 (Robbins v. Navistar International Transportation 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

Robbins v. Navistar International Transportation Corp., 224 A.D.2d 912, 638 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Plumadore, J.), entered July 17, 1995 in Saratoga County, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a conditional order rendering judgment in favor of plaintiffs based upon the failure of defendant Navistar International Transportation Corporation to comply with certain discovery demands.

[913]*913Plaintiff Francis E. Robbins was rendered a quadriplegic when his International Harvester tractor slipped out of park and ran over him. As a consequence, Robbins and his wife commenced this action against, among others, defendant Navistar International Transportation Corporation, formerly known as International Harvester Company (hereinafter defendant), sounding in negligence, breach of warranty and strict products liability. During the course of the litigation, Supreme Court rendered a discovery order on May 24, 1994 requiring production of certain documents relating to the tractor in question. On November 4, 1994, plaintiffs moved for an order of judgment by default pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) by reason of defendant’s alleged willful failure to comply with the aforesaid order. Supreme Court denied the motion, and this appeal ensued.

"We affirm. Supreme Court was vested with broad discretion to determine the motion herein, and "the harsh remedy of an order striking a party’s answer is justifiable only where the failure to comply with a discovery order is deliberate or contumacious” (Shapiro v Rose Textiles Indus., 195 AD2d 935). As the record before us does not reflect that defendant has willfully refused to comply with the discovery order in question, Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion in this regard.

Mercure, J. P., Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

—Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Plumadore, J.), entered July 17, 1995 in Saratoga County, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a conditional order rendering judgment in favor of plaintiffs based upon the failure of defendant Navistar International Transportation Corporation to comply with certain discovery demands.

[913]*913Plaintiff Francis E. Robbins was rendered a quadriplegic when his International Harvester tractor slipped out of park and ran over him. As a consequence, Robbins and his wife commenced this action against, among others, defendant Navistar International Transportation Corporation, formerly known as International Harvester Company (hereinafter defendant), sounding in negligence, breach of warranty and strict products liability. During the course of the litigation, Supreme Court rendered a discovery order on May 24, 1994 requiring production of certain documents relating to the tractor in question. On November 4, 1994, plaintiffs moved for an order of judgment by default pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) by reason of defendant’s alleged willful failure to comply with the aforesaid order. Supreme Court denied the motion, and this appeal ensued.

"We affirm. Supreme Court was vested with broad discretion to determine the motion herein, and "the harsh remedy of an order striking a party’s answer is justifiable only where the failure to comply with a discovery order is deliberate or contumacious” (Shapiro v Rose Textiles Indus., 195 AD2d 935). As the record before us does not reflect that defendant has willfully refused to comply with the discovery order in question, Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion in this regard.

Mercure, J. P., Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 912, 638 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robbins-v-navistar-international-transportation-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack