Ewa v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 02 September 2020
• Docket Number: 2018–14138,Index No.100005/17
• Citation: Ewa v. City of N.Y., 186 A.D.3d 1195, 127 N.Y.S.3d 911(Mem) (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
• Parties: Kathy EWA, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

186 A.D.3d 1195

127 N.Y.S.3d 911 (Mem)

Kathy EWA, Appellant,

v.CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

2018–14138

Index No.100005/17

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—March 19, 2020

September 2, 2020

Kathy Ewa, Staten Island, NY, appellant pro se.

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Deborah A. Brenner and Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondents City of New York, New York City Police Department (N.Y.PD), Det. James McKenna, and Detective Louis Daria.

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, New York, N.Y. (Barbara E. Hoey of counsel), for respondent Maria Jacqueline Nieto.

Bartlett LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Robert G. Vizza of counsel), for respondent Joel Idowu.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Thomas P. Aliotta, J.), dated October 5, 2018. The order granted the motion of the defendants City of New York, New York City Police Department (N.Y.PD), Det. James McKenna, and Detective Louis Daria, the separate motion of the defendant Maria Jacqueline Nieto, and the separate motion of the defendant Joel Idowu pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them based upon the plaintiff's failure to comply with court-ordered discovery.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

" ‘Resolution of discovery disputes and the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 are matters within the sound discretion of the motion court’ " ( Vays v. Luntz , 179 A.D.3d 744, 746, 113 N.Y.S.3d 556, quoting Morales v. Zherka , 140 A.D.3d 836, 836–837, 35 N.Y.S.3d 121 ; see Kihl v. Pfeffer , 94 N.Y.2d 118, 700 N.Y.S.2d 87, 722 N.E.2d 55 ; Montemurro v. Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Ctr. , 94 A.D.3d 1066, 942 N.Y.S.2d 623 ). "When a party fails to comply with a court order and frustrates the disclosure scheme set forth in the CPLR, it is within the court's discretion to strike or dismiss a pleading" ( Empire Enters. I.J.J.A., Inc. v. Daimler Buses of N. Am., Inc. , 172 A.D.3d 819, 820, 101 N.Y.S.3d 70 ; see Park Side Constr. Contrs., Inc. v. Bryan's Quality Plus, LLC , 156 A.D.3d 804, 68 N.Y.S.3d 90 ). The striking of a pleading may be appropriate where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful or contumacious (see CPLR 3126[3] ; Ahmed v. Ahmed , 175 A.D.3d 1363, 109 N.Y.S.3d 200 ; Montemurro v. Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Ctr. , 94 A.D.3d at 1066, 942 N.Y.S.2d 623 ). " ‘Willful and contumacious conduct may be inferred from a party's repeated failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, coupled with inadequate explanations for the failures to comply, or a failure to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time’ " ( Honghui Kuang v. MetLife , 159 A.D.3d 878, 881, 74 N.Y.S.3d 88, quoting Rock City Sound, Inc. v. Bashian & Farber, LLP , 83 A.D.3d 685, 686–687, 920 N.Y.S.2d 394 ; see Turiano v. Schwaber , 180 A.D.3d 950, 951–952, 119 N.Y.S.3d 206 ; Empire Enters. I.J.J.A., Inc. v. Daimler Buses of N. Am., Inc. , 172 A.D.3d at 820, 101 N.Y.S.3d 70 ).

Here, the plaintiff failed for a period of more than two years to provide substantive and complete responses to the defendants' requests for a bill of particulars and discovery such as authorizations and documents. The plaintiff further failed to comply with court orders directing such disclosure and did not provide any reasonable excuse for these failures (see Vays v. Luntz , 179 A.D.3d at 746–747, 113 N.Y.S.3d 556 ; McNelis v. Thomas , 171 A.D.3d 1038, 98 N.Y.S.3d 255 ; Novick v. DeRosa , 51 A.D.3d 885, 858 N.Y.S.2d 371 ; Martin v. City of New York , 46 A.D.3d 635, 636, 847 N.Y.S.2d 621 ; Maiorino v. City of New York , 39...