Legal Opinion

Williams v. New York City Transit Authority

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

Decided December 30, 2008PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*976The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see CPLR 3126 [2]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122-123 [1999]; Suazo-Alvarez v Nordlaw, LLC, 48 AD3d 670, 670-671 [2008]; Lotardo v Lotardo, 31 AD3d 504 [2006]). There is nothing in the record that warrants disturbing the Supreme Court’s exercise of discretion in this case. The Supreme Court could have properly inferred the willful and deliberate character of the plaintiffs’ conduct from their failures, over an eight-year period, to disclose the names of two…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Kihl v. PfefferNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
  2. Bermudez v. Laminates Unlimited Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  3. Ortega v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  4. Lotardo v. LotardoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
  5. Moog v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Llanos v. Casale Constr. Servs., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
  2. Smith v. UsmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API