Selamaj v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Selamaj v. City of New York

257 A.D.2d 616, 684 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 323

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 616 (Selamaj 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

Selamaj v. City of New York, 257 A.D.2d 616, 684 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered January 13, 1998, which denied their motion to strike the defendants’ answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, CPLR 3126; Parish Constr. Corp. v Franlo Tile, 215 AD2d 545; Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663). In this case, the plaintiffs failed to make such a showing. Notably, the defendants’ delay in complying with a pre-calendar order was relatively minor and did not cause the plaintiffs to suffer any prejudice (see, Hocevar v Honig Indus. Diamond Wheel, 172 AD2d 588). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered January 13, 1998, which denied their motion to strike the defendants’ answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, CPLR 3126; Parish Constr. Corp. v Franlo Tile, 215 AD2d 545; Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663). In this case, the plaintiffs failed to make such a showing. Notably, the defendants’ delay in complying with a pre-calendar order was relatively minor and did not cause the plaintiffs to suffer any prejudice (see, Hocevar v Honig Indus. Diamond Wheel, 172 AD2d 588). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 616, 684 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/selamaj-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack