From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Payne v. Rouse Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted January 12, 2000

February 24, 2000

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated May 14, 1999, as denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 and their separate motion for sanctions and costs.

Jones Hirsch Connors Bull, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Steven H. Kaplan of counsel), for appellants.

Bernadette Panzella, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y., for respondents.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The striking of a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure is a drastic remedy and a motion to strike should be granted only where the conduct of the nonmoving party is shown to be willful, contumacious, or in bad faith. The Supreme Court properly declined to strike the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs generally provided the requested discovery and that their conduct was not willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, Lestingi v. City of New York, 209 A.D.2d 384 ; McCarthy v. Klein, 238 A.D.2d 552 ).

The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Payne v. Rouse Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Payne v. Rouse Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED PAYNE, et al., respondents, v. ROUSE CORPORATION, et al., appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 24, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 484

Citing Cases

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Mandel

The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR §3126 lies within the sound discretion of…

Ploski v. Riverwood Owners Corp.

It is clear that both sides are partially at fault for the highly contentious and seemingly unending…