Rector v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 10 July 2019
• Docket Number: Index No. 13844/08,2017–12572
• Parties: James RECTOR, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

174 A.D.3d 660

104 N.Y.S.3d 690

James RECTOR, Appellant,

v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant,New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

2017–12572

Index No. 13844/08

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

Submitted—March 18, 2019

July 10, 2019

Borchert & LaSpina, P.C., Whitestone, N.Y. (Gregory M. LaSpina of counsel), for appellant.

Leahey & Johnson, P.C. (Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Patrick J. Lawless ], of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, HECTOR D. LASALLE, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order dated October 5, 2017, is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, a former New York City Police Department sergeant, was injured in a shooting that occurred on October 26, 2006, on a public sidewalk in the vicinity of a building operated by the defendant New York City Housing Authority (hereinafter NYCHA). In 2008, the plaintiff commenced this action, alleging, inter alia, that NYCHA was negligent in failing to provide adequate lighting and security in the area.

In 2017, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike NYCHA's answer. By order dated May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion, and the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3104(d) to review and vacate that portion of the order. In the order appealed from, dated October 5, 2017, the Supreme Court denied that motion.

Contrary to NYCHA's contention, the plaintiff is aggrieved by the order appealed from. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the Supreme Court's denial of his motion to review and vacate so much of the prior order as denied that branch of his motion which was to strike NYCHA's answer (see CPLR 5511 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Toral , 151 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 58 N.Y.S.3d 113 ; Scharlack v. Richmond Mem. Hosp. , 127 A.D.2d 580, 581, 511 N.Y.S.2d 380 ).

We agree with the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiff's motion to review and vacate so much of the prior order as denied that branch of his motion which was to strike NYCHA's answer. "Actions should be resolved on their merits whenever possible, and the drastic remedy of striking a pleading or the alternative remedy of precluding evidence should not be employed without a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious" ( Cap Rents Supply, LLC v. Durante , 167 A.D.3d 700, 702, 91 N.Y.S.3d 110 ; see Nunez v. Laidlaw , 150 A.D.3d 1124, 1126, 52 N.Y.S.3d 653 ; Harris v. City of New York , 117 A.D.3d 790, 985 N.Y.S.2d 711 ; Almonte v. Pichardo , 105 A.D.3d 687, 688, 962 N.Y.S.2d 650 ). Under the circumstances presented here, the plaintiff did not show that the actions of NYCHA in allegedly delaying its production of a witness for a deposition, and in its allegedly inadequate responses to a demand for discovery and inspection, constituted willful and contumacious or bad faith conduct that would warrant the drastic remedy of striking its answer. The plaintiff neglected this action for...