Legal Opinion
Mangru v. Schering Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 6, 2011PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*622The nature and degree of the sanction to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is within the discretion of the motion court (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122-123 [1999]; Pirro Group, LLC v One Point St., Inc., 71 AD3d 654, 655 [2010]; Novick v DeRosa, 51 AD3d 885 [2008]). The drastic remedy of striking a pleading is warranted where a party’s failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure is willful and contumacious (see Batshever v Jafar, 73 AD3d 1108 [2010]; Matter of W.O.R.C. Realty Corp. v Assessor, 32 AD3d 860, 861 [2006]). The willful and contumacious character of a party’s…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kihl v. PfefferNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Commisso v. OrshanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Pirro Group, LLC v. One Point Street, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Morgenstern v. Jeffsam Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Novick v. DeRosaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Palmieri v. Piano Exchange, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- New York Timber, LLC v. Seneca CompaniesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Robinson v. Plaro Estates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Metzger v. GoldsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016