Opinion
CA 01-02530
November 15, 2002.
Appeal from so much of an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Barry, J.), entered February 7, 2001, that granted defendant's oral application for an order of confidentiality.
HARRIS BEACH LLP, PITTSFORD (A. VINCENT BUZARD OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.
SMITH, SOVIK, KENDRICK SUGNET, P.C., SYRACUSE (JAMES W. CUNNINGHAM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., WISNER, HURLBUTT, BURNS, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the application is denied.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs' cross motion to strike defendant's answer based upon defendant's failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure and in denying that portion of the motion of defendant seeking renewal of part of its prior motion for a protective order. The failure of defendant "to comply with two court orders directing disclosure, and its protracted delay in providing a partial response to the plaintiff[s'] discovery demands, which were not adequately explained by the additional facts submitted on renewal, supported an inference that its failure to provide disclosure was willful and contumacious" ( Emanuel v. Broadway Mall Props., 293 A.D.2d 708, 709; see Osterhoudt v. Wal-Mart Stores, 273 A.D.2d 673, 674-675). Further, the motion of defendant insofar as it sought renewal of part of its prior motion for a protective order was not based on new facts unavailable at the time of the original motion. Thus, the subsequent motion was one for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable ( see Quinn v. Menzel, 282 A.D.2d 513). The striking of defendant's answer renders moot the appeal and cross appeal from the conditional order compelling disclosure and denying defendant's motion for a protective order ( see e.g. Colton, Hartnick, Yamin Sheresky v. Feinberg, 261 A.D.2d 238; see also Parisella v. Town of Fishkill, 260 A.D.2d 620, 621; Mugan v. Mugan, 145 A.D.2d 418). Finally, the court erred in granting defendant's oral application for an order of confidentiality. Nothing in the record establishes defendant's entitlement to such an order ( see New York State Elec. Gas Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 160 A.D.2d 261; cf. McLaughlin v. G.D. Searle, Inc., 38 A.D.2d 810, 811).