Pryzant v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 09 December 2002
• Citation: Pryzant v. City of New York, 300 AD2d 383, 750 N.Y.S.2d 779 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
• Parties: GABRIELLE PRYZANT et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

300 A.D.2d 383

750 N.Y.S.2d 779

GABRIELLE PRYZANT et al., Respondents,

v.CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants.

Decided December 9, 2002.

Santucci, J.P., Smith, Goldstein, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To invoke the drastic remedy of preclusion, the Supreme Court must determine that the offending party's lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious (see CPLR 3126 [2]; Kelleher v Mt. Kisco Med. Group, 264 AD2d 760; Maillard v Maillard, 243 AD2d 448). In this case, the willful and contumacious character of the defendants' failure to respond to discovery can be inferred from their continuing noncompliance with a court-ordered stipulation to produce relevant records, repeated adjournments of the production date, and inadequate excuses for the failure to produce the records (see Brandes v Pirnie-Baker, 288 AD2d 413, 414; Kelleher v Mt. Kisco Med. Group, supra at 761; Frias v Fortini, 240 AD2d 467). Accordingly, the Supreme Court's determination to preclude the defendants from...