Rodney v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 25 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 13450N,Case No. 2020-03368,Index No. 156259/18 |
| Parties | Kelly RODNEY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
192 A.D.3d 606
144 N.Y.S.3d 705
Kelly RODNEY, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
The CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants–Respondents.
13450N
Index No. 156259/18
Case No. 2020-03368
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
ENTERED March 25, 2021
Pollack Pollack Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eva L. Jerome of counsel), for The City of New York, Hudson Yards Development Corporation and Hudson Yards/Hell's Kitchen Business Improvement District, Inc., respondents.
Chiumento McNally, LLC, New York (Gary C. Chiumento of counsel), for Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc., respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kern, Moulton, Shulman, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laurence L. Love, J.), entered on or about April 29, 2020, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion to strike the answer of defendant Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc. (MVVA), and granted MVVA leave to renew its cross motion for a protective order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
It is well established that a trial court has broad discretion over the discovery process, and its determinations will not be set aside absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion (see Arts4All, Ltd. v. Hancock, 54 A.D.3d 286, 286–287, 863 N.Y.S.2d 193 [1st Dept. 2008], affd 12 N.Y.3d 846, 881 N.Y.S.2d 390, 909 N.E.2d 83 [2009], cert denied 559 U.S. 905, 130 S.Ct. 1301, 175 L.Ed.2d 1076 [2010] ; 148 Magnolia, LLC v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 486, 487, 878 N.Y.S.2d 727 [1st Dept. 2009] ). Here, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to strike MVVA's answer, due to her failure to demonstrate that any noncompliance with the court's single discovery order was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see Lee v. 13th St. Entertainment LLC, 161 A.D.3d 631, 78 N.Y.S.3d 26 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Delgado v. City of New York, 47 A.D.3d 550, 850 N.Y.S.2d 401 [1st Dept....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pettinato v. EQR-Rivertower, LLC
...process, and its determinations will not be set aside absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion" ( Rodney v. City of New York , 192 A.D.3d 606, 606, 144 N.Y.S.3d 705 [1st Dept. 2021] ; see Matter of U.S. Pioneer Elecs. Corp. [Nikko Elec.Corp. of Am.] , 47 N.Y.2d 914, 916, 419 N.Y.S.2d 4......
-
Emigrant Bank v. Rosabianca
...process, and its determinations will not be set aside absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion" ( Rodney v. City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 606, 606, 144 N.Y.S.3d 705 [1st Dept. 2021] [citations omitted]). "In monitoring discovery, any sanction levied by a court must be proportionate to t......
- Schwenger v. Weitz, Kleinick & Weitz, LLP
-
M. Alfonso Painting Corp. v. I Labor, LLC
... ... This ... court has broad discretion over the discovery process ... (Rodney v. City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 606) and ... finds that given the facts and procedural ... ...
-
Objections & related procedures
...error harmless). A witness or counsel violates the judge’s instructions or rules of court. But see Rodney v. City of New York , 192 A.D.3d 606, 144 N.Y.S.3d 705 (2021) (the trial court providently exercised its discretion by denying plaintiff ’s motion to strike defendant’s answer, where ......