Segarra v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Segarra v. City of New York

269 A.D.2d 439, 702 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1384

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 439 (Segarra 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

Segarra v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 439, 702 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence and false arrest, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated January 8, 1999, which denied his motion, in effect, to strike the defendants’ answer based on their failure to comply with his discovery requests.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that the drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, CPLR 3126; Smith v Bynum, 260 AD2d 626). In this case, the plaintiff failed to make such a showing.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit. Joy, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Schmidt, 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 negligence and false arrest, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated January 8, 1999, which denied his motion, in effect, to strike the defendants’ answer based on their failure to comply with his discovery requests.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that the drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, CPLR 3126; Smith v Bynum, 260 AD2d 626). In this case, the plaintiff failed to make such a showing.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit. Joy, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 439, 702 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/segarra-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack