Maignan v. Nahar
| Decision Date | 13 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2006-04492. |
| Parties | EUSTACHE MAIGNAN et al., Respondents, v. AYNUN NAHAR, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To invoke the drastic remedy of striking an answer, it must be shown that a defendant's failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful and contumacious conduct (see CPLR 3126; Bates v Baez, 299 AD2d 382 [2002]). The willful and contumacious character of a party's conduct can be inferred from the repeated failures to comply with court-ordered discovery, coupled with inadequate explanations for these defaults (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]; Bates v Baez, supra; Patterson v Greater N.Y. Corp. of Seventh Day Adventists, 284 AD2d 382 [2001]). In opposition to that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendant's answer, the defendant's attorney merely alleged that his office had difficulty communicating with the defendant, and thus, it was unable to produce him for a deposition. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the fact that he had disappeared or made himself unavailable did not provide a basis for denying that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to strike his answer for his failure to appear at a deposition and to comply with a court-ordered discovery request (see Bates v Baez, supra; Kennedy v Class, 292 AD2d 503 [2002]; Robinson v Rollins Leasing Corp., 288 AD2d 367 [2001]; Torres v DeCordova, 262 AD2d 399 [1999]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in conditionally striking the defendant's answer.
Motion by the respondents on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 17, 2006, inter alia, to strike pages 52 through 54 of the record on appeal and all references to those pages in the appellant's main brief and reply brief on the ground that they contain or refer to matter dehors the record. Cross motion by the appellant, inter alia, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aronov v. Shimonov
...answer ( see Carabello v. Luna, 49 A.D.3d 679, 680, 853 N.Y.S.2d 663;Duncan v. Hebb, 47 A.D.3d 871, 850 N.Y.S.2d 610;Maignan v. Nahar, 37 A.D.3d 557, 830 N.Y.S.2d 249). We have not considered matter dehors the record referred to in the appellants' reply briefs ( see Tsikotis v. Pioneer Bldg......
-
Kirkland v. Fayne
...v. Walker, 38 A.D.2d 720, 329 N.Y.S.2d 373; see also Mason v. MTA N.Y. City Tr., 38 A.D.3d 258, 832 N.Y.S.2d 153; Maignan v. Nahar, 37 A.D.3d 557, 830 N.Y.S.2d 249; Robinson v. Rollins Leasing Corp., 288 A.D.2d 367, 734 N.Y.S.2d 83). Furthermore, Griffiths failed to demonstrate, through evi......
-
Almonte v. Pichardo
...order was the result of willful and contumacious conduct ( see Carabello v. Luna, 49 A.D.3d 679, 853 N.Y.S.2d 663;Maignan v. Nahar, 37 A.D.3d 557, 830 N.Y.S.2d 249;Espinal v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 806, 695 N.Y.S.2d 610). Here, defense counsel asserted that he could not produce the in......
-
Morson v. 5899 Realty, LLC
...Prod. Servs., LLC, 71 A.D.3d 754, 755, 895 N.Y.S.2d 746 ; Carabello v. Luna, 49 A.D.3d 679, 680, 853 N.Y.S.2d 663 ; Maignan v. Nahar, 37 A.D.3d 557, 830 N.Y.S.2d 249 ). Additionally, the defendants were not excused from producing Popack as directed merely because the superintendent of the a......