Sony Corp. of America v. Savemart, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 October 1977 |
| Citation | 398 N.Y.S.2d 539,59 A.D.2d 676 |
| Parties | SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SAVEMART, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
L. H. Rubin, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
A. Shapiro, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before BIRNS, J. P., and LANE, MARKEWICH and LYNCH, JJ.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 17, 1977, striking the defendant's answer and granting judgment in favor of plaintiff on its first cause of action in sum of $190,185.55 unanimously affirmed, Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements. Appeals unanimously dismissed without costs and without disbursements (a) from order entered January 19, 1977, denying reargument, as non-appealable; (b) from decision dated December 17, 1976, as non-appealable; and (c) from order, entered February 16, 1977, striking the answer and authorizing entry of judgment, as not separately appealable, which order is reviewable on appeal from the judgment (CPLR § 5501(a)(1)) and upon such review, said order is affirmed.
In this action for goods sold and delivered, defendant's answer was stricken for failure to depose.
Under CPLR 3126, if one "party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information, the Court may order the pleadings struck." (Rodriguez v. Sklar, 56 A.D.2d 537, 538, 391 N.Y.S.2d 423).
Although "(t)he striking of an answer is an extreme and drastic penalty which should not be invoked where . . . the moving affidavit fails to show conclusively that the default . . . was clearly deliberate or contumacious" (Cinelli v. Radcliffe, 35 A.D.2d 829, 317 N.Y.S.2d 97, 98), such sanction is proper where the conduct of a party warrants it.
The record before us discloses that defendant engaged in a course of conduct which was dilatory, evasive and obstructive, impelling plaintiff to proceed with six successive motions over a period of about a year and a half in an attempt to obtain discovery. Accordingly, defendant's behavior justified striking the answer.
Defendant's contention that the court erred in awarding judgment for the full amount sought for the reason that the result is "replete with evidence that plaintiff did not and cannot prove it is entitled to that amount" is without merit. Whether plaintiff was entitled to recover the entire amount claimed was to have been the object of the contest. Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G.willi-Food Int'l Ltd. v. Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C.
...a pleading if a "party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information." Sony Corp. of Am. v. Savemart, Inc., 59 A.D.2d 676, 677 (1st Dep't 1977); Henry Rosenfeld, Inc. v. Bower & Gardner, 161 A.D.2d 374 (1st Dep't 1990). However, "in furtherance of the po......
-
Fucci v. Fucci
...(see, CPLR 3126[3]; Horowitz v. Camp Cedarhurst & Town & Count. Day School, 119 A.D.2d 548, 500 N.Y.S.2d 726; Sony Corp. of Amer. v. Savemart, Inc, 59 A.D.2d 676, 398 N.Y.S.2d 539), or at the very least gave rise to an inference of willful and contumacious conduct which justified the striki......
-
Corsini v. U-Haul Intern., Inc.
...or due to bad faith (CPLR 3126[3]; Zletz v. Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711, 499 N.Y.S.2d 933, 490 N.E.2d 852; Sony Corporation of America v. Savemart, 59 A.D.2d 676, 398 N.Y.S.2d 539). Because of the strong public policy in this state against limiting audience before the court, and in favor of res......
-
Dauria v. City of New York
...is required before imposition of the ultimate penalty--striking the answer in this instance. Sony Corp. of America v. Savemart, Inc., 59 A.D.2d 676, 398 N.Y.S.2d 539 (1st Dept, 1977); Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, C3126:7. Since such extreme conduct ......