Legal Opinion
Forbes v. New York City Transit Authority
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 18, 2011PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Denial of the motion was proper inasmuch as defendants’ proffered excuse of “law office failure” was not credible (see *547Gonzalez v Praise the Lord Dental, 79 AD3d 550 [2010]). Defendants’ pattern of noncompliance with court-ordered disclosure over a period of several years gives rise to an inference of willful and contumacious conduct that warranted the striking of the answer (see Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74, 81 [2010]; Bryant v New York City Hous. Auth., 69 AD3d 488 [2010]). Furthermore, the discovery responses that defense counsel claims would have demonstrated compliance with the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gibbs v. St. Barnabas HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Morse Shoe Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Gonzalez v. Praise the Lord DentalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Bryant v. New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Guzman v. Mike's Pipe YardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
3Cited by8 opinions
- Jones v. FEGS-WeCARE/Human Resources, NYCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Jones v. FEGS-WeCARE/Human Resources, NYCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Lane v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- Lane v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- O'Flaherty v. ColumboAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.