Maiorino v. City of New York
Decision Date | 10 April 2007 |
Docket Number | 2006-03584.,2005-09702. |
Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 03104,39 A.D.3d 601,834 N.Y.S.2d 272 |
Parties | PATRICK MAIORINO, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
"[A] trial court is given broad discretion to oversee the discovery process" (Castillo v Henry Schein, Inc., 259 AD2d 651, 652 [1999]). Although actions should be resolved on the merits wherever possible (see Cruzatti v St. Mary's Hosp., 193 AD2d 579, 580 [1993]), a court may strike the "pleadings or parts thereof" (CPLR 3126 [3]) as a sanction against a party who "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed" (CPLR 3126). While the nature and degree of the sanction to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter of discretion with the motion court (see Soto v City of Long Beach, 197 AD2d 615, 616 [1993]; Spira v Antoine, 191 AD2d 219 [1993]), "striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful [and] contumacious" (Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663, 664 [1995]).
Here, the defendant's willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from its repeated failures to comply with court orders directing disclosure (see Espinal v City of New York, 264 AD2d 806 [1999]; see also Kryzhanovskaya v City of New York, 31 AD3d 717, 718 [2006]; Careccia v Metropolitan...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.
...appeal from this order. “ ‘[A] trial court is given broad discretion to oversee the discovery process' ” ( Maiorino v. City of New York, 39 A.D.3d 601, 601, 834 N.Y.S.2d 272, quoting Castillo v. Henry Schein, Inc., 259 A.D.2d 651, 652, 686 N.Y.S.2d 818 ; see Berkowitz v. 29 Woodmere Blvd. O......
-
Rivers v. Birnbaum
...v. One Point St., Inc., 71 A.D.3d 654, 896 N.Y.S.2d 152;Bomzer v. Parke–Davis, 41 A.D.3d 522, 839 N.Y.S.2d 110;Maiorino v. City of New York, 39 A.D.3d 601, 834 N.Y.S.2d 272). We recognize that certain decisions of this Court may have been interpreted as standing for the proposition that a p......
-
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.
...appeal from both orders. “ ‘[A] trial court is given broad discretion to oversee the discovery process' ” (Maiorino v. City of New York, 39 A.D.3d 601, 601, 834 N.Y.S.2d 272, quoting Castillo v. Henry Schein, Inc., 259 A.D.2d 651, 652, 686 N.Y.S.2d 818 ; see Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc., –––A......
-
Orgel v. Stewart Title Ins. Co.
...and citations omitted] ). Here, the court, which has “ ‘broad discretion to oversee the discovery process' ” ( Maiorino v. City of New York, 39 A.D.3d 601, 601, 834 N.Y.S.2d 272, quoting Castillo v. Henry Schein, Inc., 259 A.D.2d 651, 652, 686 N.Y.S.2d 818), determined that the defendant ha......