From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arts4All, Ltd. v. Hancock

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 12, 2009
12 N.Y.3d 846 (N.Y. 2009)

Opinion

Decided May 12, 2009.

APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered August 26, 2008. The Appellate Division order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.; op 2006 NY Slip Op 30547[U]), which had dismissed plaintiffs' remaining cause of action for failure to comply with discovery. The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: "Was the order of this Court, which affirmed the order of the Supreme Court, properly made?"

In ligitation arising out of the termination of defendant's employment, the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion to strike the pleadings (CPLR 3126) where the parties offered no excuse for their repeated noncompliance with disclosure orders, and their conduct throughout the course of litigation was dilatory, evasive, obstructive and contumacious; and that the court's finding that the parties' conduct was willful and contumacious was supported by the record.

Arts4All, Ltd. v Hancock, 54 AD3d 286, affirmed.

Zachary R. Greenhill, P.C., New York City ( Zachary R. Greenhill of counsel), for appellant.

Trachtenberg Rodes Friedberg LLP, New York City ( David G. Trachtenberg of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES.


OPINION OF THE COURT

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered as unnecessary.

The courts below applied the correct legal standards, properly considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, and did not abuse their discretion in dismissing plaintiffs' remaining cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) ( see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123).

In memorandum; Chief Judge LIPPMAN taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, etc.


Summaries of

Arts4All, Ltd. v. Hancock

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 12, 2009
12 N.Y.3d 846 (N.Y. 2009)
Case details for

Arts4All, Ltd. v. Hancock

Case Details

Full title:ARTS4ALL, LTD., Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. JUDITH L. HANCOCK…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 12, 2009

Citations

12 N.Y.3d 846 (N.Y. 2009)
881 N.Y.S.2d 390
909 N.E.2d 83

Citing Cases

Williams v. Shiva Ambulette Serv. Inc.

The court did not abuse its discretion in striking the complaint and dismissing the action ( seeCPLR…

Watson v. City of N.Y.

Although actions should be resolved on the merits whenever possible, the efficient disposition of cases "is…