Laskin v. Friedman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) to strike the defendants’ answer for failure to comply with discovery demands. “[T]he drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that *618the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith” (Jenkins v Proto Prop. Servs., LLC, 54 AD3d 726, 726-727 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Denoyelles v Gallagher, 40 AD3d 1027, 1027 [2007]). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Denoyelles v. GallagherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Barnes v. PaulinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Jenkins v. Proto Property Services, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Dennis v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Yi Min Ren v. Professional Steam-Cleaning, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pinto v. TenenbaumAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Scorzari v. PezzaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Pennachio v. Costco Wholesale Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Falcone v. KaragiannisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Halvatzis v. Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.