Hoi Wah Lai v. Mack
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*991The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the appellants’ answer. A court may strike an answer as a sanction if a defendant “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed” (CPLR 3126; see Thompson v Dallas BBQ, 84 AD3d 1221 [2011]; Mazza v Seneca, 72 AD3d 754 [2010]). However, the drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the defendant’s failure to comply with discovery demands was…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dennis v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Quiroz v. BeitiaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Pirro Group, LLC v. One Point Street, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Dank v. Sears Holding Management Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Mazza v. SenecaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Montemurro v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Perla v. Daytree Custom Builders, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Murphy v. County of SuffolkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Caban v. Rzak Development Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- John Hancock Life Insurance v. Triangulo Real Estate Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.