Sanders v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanders v. City of New York

283 A.D.2d 565, 724 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5309

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

DecidedMay 21, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 565 (Sanders v. City of New York) 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

Sanders v. City of New York, 283 A.D.2d 565, 724 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated June 8, 2000, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendants’ answer pursuant to CPLR 3126. The harsh remedy of striking a plead[566]*566ing should be imposed only when the conduct of a party is shown to be willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663; cf., Birch Hill Farm v Reed, 272 AD2d 282; Espinal v City of New York, 264 AD2d 806). No such showing was made in this case.

The plaintiffs remaining arguments are without merit. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated June 8, 2000, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendants’ answer pursuant to CPLR 3126. The harsh remedy of striking a plead[566]*566ing should be imposed only when the conduct of a party is shown to be willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663; cf., Birch Hill Farm v Reed, 272 AD2d 282; Espinal v City of New York, 264 AD2d 806). No such showing was made in this case.

The plaintiffs remaining arguments are without merit. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 565, 724 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack