From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rojas v. Hazzard

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Apr 3, 2019
171 A.D.3d 819 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2016–12699 Index No. 9072/13

04-03-2019

Sabrina ROJAS, Appellant, v. William HAZZARD II, et al., Defendants, City of New York, Respondent.

Chopra & Nocerino, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Alex Nocerino and Sameer Chopra of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Barbara Graves–Poller of counsel), for respondent.


Chopra & Nocerino, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Alex Nocerino and Sameer Chopra of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Barbara Graves–Poller of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lara J. Genovesi, J.), dated September 30, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the plaintiff's motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 for the imposition of sanctions for frivolous conduct against the defendant City of New York, and pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude that defendant from offering evidence at trial and to strike that defendant's answer.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 for the imposition of sanctions. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendant City of New York (hereinafter the defendant) engaged in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 [c] ).

Turning to the branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for the imposition of sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126, the record contains no clear showing that the defendant willfully or contumaciously disobeyed any of the Supreme Court's discovery orders or acted in bad faith. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion (see 1523 Real Estate, Inc. v. East Atl. Props., LLC, 41 A.D.3d 567, 568, 839 N.Y.S.2d 111 ).

DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rojas v. Hazzard

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Apr 3, 2019
171 A.D.3d 819 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Rojas v. Hazzard

Case Details

Full title:Sabrina Rojas, appellant, v. William Hazzard II, et al., defendants, City…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Apr 3, 2019

Citations

171 A.D.3d 819 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
95 N.Y.S.3d 832
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 2572

Citing Cases

Sterling Tr. Ltd. v. Stern

Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's…

Shumway v. Rosenzweig

The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion by, in effect, granting that branch of the mother's…