Perry v. Town of Geneva
| Decision Date | 10 July 2009 |
| Docket Number | CA 08-02541. |
| Citation | 64 A.D.3d 1225,882 N.Y.S.2d 626,2009 NY Slip Op 05815 |
| Parties | CLYDE PERRY et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF GENEVA, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), entered April 23, 2008 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant's motion for preclusion.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified in the exercise of discretion by providing that the motion is granted unless plaintiff Clyde Perry, within 15 days of service of the order of this Court with notice of entry, serves a verified bill of particulars complying with each item of the demand for a bill of particulars and pays defendant's attorney $1,500 toward costs and attorney's fees as a sanction and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Clyde Perry (plaintiff) when he was catapulted from the all-terrain vehicle (ATV) he was riding after the ATV struck some logs that had been left on his property by defendant's employees. After plaintiffs repeatedly failed to provide responses to defendant's demand for a bill of particulars, defendant moved to preclude plaintiffs "from giving evidence/testimony on the trial of this action of the items of which particulars have not been delivered, as demanded." In its attorney's reply affidavit, defendant also sought dismissal of the claim of plaintiff Rose Perry based on her failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-i by serving defendant with a notice of claim. Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the motion, and plaintiffs on appeal challenge only that part of the order concerning preclusion.
We conclude that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in determining that preclusion was appropriate. Generally, "[t]he nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed on a CPLR 3126 motion lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be disturbed only if there has been an abuse or [an] improvident exercise of discretion" (Kimmel v State of New York, 267 AD2d 1079, 1080 [1999]; see Optic Plus Enters., Ltd. v Bausch & Lomb Inc., 37 AD3d 1185, 1186-1187 [2007]). Nevertheless, this Court has repeatedly held that the striking of a pleading is appropriate only "`where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hann v. Black
...a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith” ( Perry v. Town of Geneva, 64 A.D.3d 1225, 1226, 882 N.Y.S.2d 626 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). “Once a moving party establishes that the failure to comply with a disclosure ......
-
Pezzino v. Wedgewood Health Care Ctr., LLC, 36
...and will be disturbed only if there has been an abuse or [an] improvident exercise of discretion’ " ( Perry v. Town of Geneva, 64 A.D.3d 1225, 1226, 882 N.Y.S.2d 626 [4th Dept. 2009] ). Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals has recognized that, with respect to the supervision of disclosure, "t......
-
Benedict v. Benedict, 1417
...; Matter of Duma v. Edgar , 58 A.D.3d 1085, 1086, 873 N.Y.S.2d 747 [3d Dept. 2009] ; see generally Perry v. Town of Geneva , 64 A.D.3d 1225, 1226, 882 N.Y.S.2d 626 [4th Dept. 2009] ). We also reject the father's contention that the mother was not entitled to disclosure of the business ledge......
-
Sharkey v. Chow
...disclose excess coverage was not willful, contumacious or in bad faith and thus refusing to strike the answer ( cf. Perry v. Town of Geneva, 64 A.D.3d 1225, 882 N.Y.S.2d 626). In the absence of an abuse of discretion that determination will not be disturbed ( see generally Roswell Park Canc......