Mitchell v. Grace Plaza of Great Neck, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 December 2010
• Citation: 913 N.Y.S.2d 581,79 A.D.3d 1108
• Parties: Bobby MITCHELL, etc., appellant, v. GRACE PLAZA OF GREAT NECK, INC., et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

913 N.Y.S.2d 581

79 A.D.3d 1108

Bobby MITCHELL, etc., appellant,

v.GRACE PLAZA OF GREAT NECK, INC., et al., respondents.

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

Dec. 28, 2010.

Lawrence Levine, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP, New York, N.Y. (Arjay G. Yao and Joseph L. DeMarzo of counsel), for respondent Grace Plaza of Great Neck, Inc.

Costello, Shea & Gaffney, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Colleen E. Hastie and Paul E. Blutman of counsel), for respondent North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), entered January 14, 2010, which granted the motion of the defendant North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., in which the defendant Grace Plaza of Great Neck, Inc., joined, pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts and in theexercise of discretion, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff, and the motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint is denied.

A court may dismiss an action as a sanction if a plaintiff "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed" (CPLR 3126). However, "the drastic remedy of dismissal is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the plaintiff's failure to comply with disclosure obligations was willful and contumacious" ( Rini v. Blanck, 74 A.D.3d 941, 942, 902 N.Y.S.2d 185; see Negro v. St. Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr., 44 A.D.3d 727, 728, 843 N.Y.S.2d 178; Kesar v. Green Ridge Enters. Corp., 30 A.D.3d 471, 817 N.Y.S.2d 343). Here, the record does not demonstrate that the plaintiff's failure to disclose certain information was willful and contumacious. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidentlyexercised its discretion in granting the motion ( see Rini v. Blanck, 74 A.D.3d at 942, 902 N.Y.S.2d 185; Negro v. St. Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr., 44 A.D.3d at 728, 843 N.Y.S.2d 178; Joe DeMartino Mason Contrs. & Sons, Inc. v. Main Plaza Realty, 44 A.D.3d 716, 842 N.Y.S.2d 719).

SKELOS, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, HALL and ROMAN, JJ., concur.