75 A.D.3d 219, 2010-04465, Fish & Richardson, P.C. v. Schindler

Docket Nº2010-04465
Citation75 A.D.3d 219, 901 N.Y.S.2d 598
Opinion JudgeRICHTER, J.
Party NameFISH & RICHARDSON, P.C., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Randy SCHINDLER, Defendant-Appellant.
AttorneyDanzig Fishman & Decea, White Plains (Donald S. Campbell, Donald G. Davis and Jenifer J. Liu of counsel), for appellant. [901 N.Y.S.2d 599] Brown & Whalen, P.C., New York (Rodney A. Brown and Ryan J. Whalen of counsel), for respondent.
Judge PanelPETER TOM, J.P., ANGELA M. MAZZARELLI, ROLANDO T. ACOSTA, LELAND G. DeGRASSE, ROSALYN H. RICHTER, JJ. All concur.
Case DateMay 25, 2010
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department

Page 219

75 A.D.3d 219

901 N.Y.S.2d 598

FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

Randy SCHINDLER, Defendant-Appellant.

2010-04465

Supreme Court of New York, First Department

May 25, 2010

Danzig Fishman & Decea, White Plains (Donald S. Campbell, Donald G. Davis and Jenifer J. Liu of counsel), for appellant.

[901 N.Y.S.2d 599] Brown & Whalen, P.C., New York (Rodney A. Brown and Ryan J. Whalen of counsel), for respondent.

PETER TOM, J.P., ANGELA M. MAZZARELLI, ROLANDO T. ACOSTA, LELAND G. DeGRASSE, ROSALYN H. RICHTER, JJ.

RICHTER, J.

This appeal brings up for review an order of Supreme Court that granted plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's answer for failing to comply with multiple court orders and discovery deadlines. CPLR 3126 provides that if a party " refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed ..., the court may make such orders ... as are just." A court may strike an answer as a sanction where the moving party establishes that the failure to comply was " willful, contumacious or in bad faith" ( Rodriguez v. United Bronx Parents, Inc., 70 A.D.3d 492, 492, 895 N.Y.S.2d 57 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ). Upon such showing, the burden " shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate a reasonable excuse" ( Reidel v. Ryder TRS, Inc., 13 A.D.3d 170, 171, 786 N.Y.S.2d 487 [2004] ).

" If the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity" ( Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d 118, 123, 700 N.Y.S.2d 87, 722 N.E.2d 55 [1999] ). Although actions should be resolved on the merits whenever possible, the efficient disposition of cases is not advanced by hindering the ability of the trial court to supervise the parties who appear before it and to ensure they comply with the court's directives ( see Arts4All, Ltd. v. Hancock, 54 A.D.3d 286, 287, 863 N.Y.S.2d 193 [2008], affd. 12 N.Y.3d 846, 881 N.Y.S.2d 390, 909 N.E.2d 83 [2009], cert. denied __ U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 1301, __ L.Ed.2d __ [2010] ). Thus, a penalty imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 should not be readily disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion ( id. at 286, 863 N.Y.S.2d 193; see Sawh v. Bridges, 120 A.D.2d 74, 79, 507 N.Y.S.2d 632 [1986], appeal dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 852, 514 N.Y.S.2d 719...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 practice notes
  • 118 A.D.3d 428, 2014-04047, Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v. Varig Logistica S.A.
    • United States
    • June 5, 2014
    ...court and should not be disturbed on appeal absent evidence of an abuse of discretion ( see Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler, 75 A.D.3d 219, 220, 901 N.Y.S.2d 598 [1st Dept 2010]; Talansky v Schulman, 2 A.D.3d 355, 361-362, 770 N.Y.S.2d 48 [1st Dept 2003]). Courts " possess broa......
  • 39 Misc.3d 1242(A), 2013-50983, Caldwell v. New York City Transit Authority
    • United States
    • June 19, 2013
    ...Henderson v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 74 A.D.3d 654 [1st Dept 2010]; Fish & Richardson, P.C. v. Schindler, 75 A.D.3d 219 [1st Dept 2010]; Bryant v. New York City Hous. Auth., 69 A.D.3d 488 [1st Dept 2010]; Figiel v. Met Food, 48 A.D.3d 330 [1st Dept 2008].) Plain......
  • Scarola Ellis, LLP v. Padeh, 052312 NYMISC, 2012-31406
    • United States
    • May 23, 2012
    ...489, 490 (1st Dept. 2003). The burden to show this bad faith rests with the moving party. See Fish & Richardson. P.C. v, Schindler, 75 A.D.3d 219, 220, 901 N.Y.S.2d 598, 599 (1st Dept. 2010). Here, plaintiff has presented a very narrow legal and factual argument: the search for emails a......
  • 95 A.D.3d 592, 2012-03753, G.M. Data Corp. v. Potato Farms, LLC
    • United States
    • May 10, 2012
    ...and contumaciously failed to comply with discovery obligations ( see [944 N.Y.S.2d 104] Fish & Richardson, P.C. v. Schindler, 75 A.D.3d 219, 220, 901 N.Y.S.2d 598 [2010] ). Defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with the conditional order of preclusion......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
37 cases
  • 118 A.D.3d 428, 2014-04047, Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v. Varig Logistica S.A.
    • United States
    • June 5, 2014
    ...court and should not be disturbed on appeal absent evidence of an abuse of discretion ( see Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler, 75 A.D.3d 219, 220, 901 N.Y.S.2d 598 [1st Dept 2010]; Talansky v Schulman, 2 A.D.3d 355, 361-362, 770 N.Y.S.2d 48 [1st Dept 2003]). Courts " possess broa......
  • 39 Misc.3d 1242(A), 2013-50983, Caldwell v. New York City Transit Authority
    • United States
    • June 19, 2013
    ...Henderson v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 74 A.D.3d 654 [1st Dept 2010]; Fish & Richardson, P.C. v. Schindler, 75 A.D.3d 219 [1st Dept 2010]; Bryant v. New York City Hous. Auth., 69 A.D.3d 488 [1st Dept 2010]; Figiel v. Met Food, 48 A.D.3d 330 [1st Dept 2008].) Plain......
  • Scarola Ellis, LLP v. Padeh, 052312 NYMISC, 2012-31406
    • United States
    • May 23, 2012
    ...489, 490 (1st Dept. 2003). The burden to show this bad faith rests with the moving party. See Fish & Richardson. P.C. v, Schindler, 75 A.D.3d 219, 220, 901 N.Y.S.2d 598, 599 (1st Dept. 2010). Here, plaintiff has presented a very narrow legal and factual argument: the search for emails a......
  • 95 A.D.3d 592, 2012-03753, G.M. Data Corp. v. Potato Farms, LLC
    • United States
    • May 10, 2012
    ...and contumaciously failed to comply with discovery obligations ( see [944 N.Y.S.2d 104] Fish & Richardson, P.C. v. Schindler, 75 A.D.3d 219, 220, 901 N.Y.S.2d 598 [2010] ). Defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with the conditional order of preclusion......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT