Gadley v. US SUGAR COMPANY, INC.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1999 |
| Parties | LAWRENCE D. GADLEY, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>U.S. SUGAR COMPANY, INC., Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant.<BR>EGW TEMPORARIES, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Present €” Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Hayes and Hurlbutt, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, answer and third-party complaint reinstated and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. "[M]ultiple summary judgment motions in the same action should be discouraged in the absence of newly discovered evidence or sufficient cause" (Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Windsor Place Corp., 238 AD2d 142, 143). In any event, the conflicting affidavits create a question of fact regarding plaintiff's status as a special employee (see, Gadley v U.S. Sugar Co., 210 AD2d 983).
The court abused its discretion, however, in granting without a hearing plaintiffs motion to strike the answer and third-party defendant's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint based on defendant's failure to produce certain requested discovery materials. Trial courts have broad discretion in supervising disclosure and, absent a clear abuse of that discretion, a trial court's exercise of such authority should not be disturbed (see, Andruszewski v Cantello, 247 AD2d 876). While the relief granted to plaintiff and third-party defendant is a sanction available to the court upon defendant's failure to comply with discovery requests (see, CPLR 3126 [3]), it is well settled that the harsh remedy of striking an answer should be granted only where it is conclusively shown that the discovery default was deliberate or contumacious (see, Quinn v Broder, 225 AD2d 1110; Gaylord Bros. v RND Co., 134 AD2d 848). We cannot determine on the record before us whether a discovery default occurred, and, if so, whether it was deliberate or contumacious. Nor are we able to determine the effect of such default, if any, on plaintiff and third-party defendant; "[t]he general rule is `that the demanding party should not be granted more relief for nondisclosure than is reasonably necessary to protect legitimate interests'" (Gaylord Bros. v RND Co., supra, at 849). We therefore reverse the order in appeal No. 1 and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing before a different Justice to determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paull v. First UNUM Life Ins. Co.
...be granted only where it is conclusively shown that the discovery default was deliberate or contumacious" (Gadley v. U.S. Sugar Co., 259 A.D.2d 1041, 1042, 688 N.Y.S.2d 350; see, Forman v. Jamesway Corp., 175 A.D.2d 514, 515, 572 N.Y.S.2d 782; Roof v. Bogdanski, 174 A.D.2d 1046, 572 N.Y.S.2......
-
Hall v. Integrity Real Estate Props., Inc.
...absent a clear abuse of that discretion, a trial court's exercise of such authority should not be disturbed" ( Gadley v. U.S. Sugar Co., 259 A.D.2d 1041, 1042, 688 N.Y.S.2d 350 ). The CPLR provides that, "[i]f any party ... refuses to obey an order for disclosure ..., the court may make suc......
-
Citibank v. Runfola, PLAINTIFF-APPELLAN
...successive motions for summary judgment are generally discouraged (see, Welch Foods v Wilson, 277 A.D.2d 882; see also, Gadley v U.S. Sugar Co., 259 A.D.2d 1041), in this case defendant did not oppose the present motion on that ground. Indeed, neither party has addressed that ground on appe......
- MATTER OF DUBE v. Dube
-
Enforcement
...N.J.Super. 127 (N.J. App. 1999). New York: DeSilva v. Rosenberg , 690 N.Y.S.2d 616 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1999); Gadley v. U.S. Sugar Co. , 688 N.Y.S.2d 350 (N.Y.A.D. 1999). North Carolina: Alston v. Duke University , 514 S.E.2d 298 (1999). Ohio: State ex rel. Abner v. Elliott , 706 N.E.2d 765, ......
-
Defending and responding in general
...N.J.Super 127 (N.J. Super 1999). New York : DeSilva v. Rosenberg, 690 N.Y.S.2d 616 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dep’t 1999); Gadley v. U.S. Sugar Co. , 688 N.Y.S.2d 350 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dep’t 1999). North Carolina : Alston v. Duke University , 514 S.E.2d 298 (1999). Ohio : State ex rel. Abner v. Elliott , 706 N.......
-
Defending and Responding in General
...N.J.Super 127 (N.J. Super 1999). New York: DeSilva v. Rosenberg , 690 N.Y.S.2d 616 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dep’t 1999); Gadley v. U.S. Sugar Co. , 688 N.Y.S.2d 350 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dep’t 1999). North Carolina: Alston v. Duke University , 514 S.E.2d 298 (1999). Ohio: State ex rel. Abner v. Elliott , 706 N.E.......
-
Enforcement
...N.J.Super. 127 (N.J. App. 1999). New York: DeSilva v. Rosenberg , 690 N.Y.S.2d 616 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1999); Gadley v. U.S. Sugar Co. , 688 N.Y.S.2d 350 (N.Y.A.D. 1999). North Carolina: Alston v. Duke University , 514 S.E.2d 298 (1999). Ohio: State ex rel. Abner v. Elliott , 706 N.E.2d 765, ......