Wexler v. Malpeso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wexler v. Malpeso

234 A.D.2d 149, 651 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12525

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 149 (Wexler v. Malpeso) 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

Wexler v. Malpeso, 234 A.D.2d 149, 651 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 22,1996, which granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike defendant’s answer and directed an assessment of damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The willful and contumacious character of defendant’s failure to disclose can be inferred from his protracted noncompliance with three separate orders directing disclosure, and inadequate excuses therefor (Glasburgh v Port Auth., 193 AD2d 441). Given this consistent pattern of noncompliance, the IAS Court properly rejected defendant’s last-ditch effort to meet his disclosure obligations with belated, not fully compliant, supplemental responses (see, Jackson v Marcato El. Co., 225 AD2d 361). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 22,1996, which granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike defendant’s answer and directed an assessment of damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The willful and contumacious character of defendant’s failure to disclose can be inferred from his protracted noncompliance with three separate orders directing disclosure, and inadequate excuses therefor (Glasburgh v Port Auth., 193 AD2d 441). Given this consistent pattern of noncompliance, the IAS Court properly rejected defendant’s last-ditch effort to meet his disclosure obligations with belated, not fully compliant, supplemental responses (see, Jackson v Marcato El. Co., 225 AD2d 361). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 149, 651 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wexler-v-malpeso-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack