Estaba v. Quow

• Decision Date: 19 December 2012
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08689,101 A.D.3d 940,956 N.Y.S.2d 143
• Parties: Blanca ESTABA, respondent, v. Joel L. QUOW, et al., defendants, Kev–Ra Limo, Inc., et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

101 A.D.3d 940

956 N.Y.S.2d 143

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08689

Blanca ESTABA, respondent,

v. Joel L. QUOW, et al., defendants,Kev–Ra Limo, Inc., et al., appellants.

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

Dec. 19, 2012.

Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for appellants.

Robert C. Fontanelli, P.C. (Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SANDRA L. SGROI, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Kev–Ra Limo, Inc., and Luis Alfredo Ruiz appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Francois Rivera, J.), dated December 2, 2011, which granted the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike their answer.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter within the discretion of the trial court ( see Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d 118, 122–123, 700 N.Y.S.2d 87, 722 N.E.2d 55;Commisso v. Orshan, 85 A.D.3d 845, 925 N.Y.S.2d 612;Rock City Sound, Inc. v. Bashian & Farber, LLP, 83 A.D.3d 685, 686, 920 N.Y.S.2d 394). The drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the defendant's failure to comply with discovery demands was willful and contumacious ( see Orgel v. Stewart Tit. Ins. Co., 91 A.D.3d 922, 923, 938 N.Y.S.2d 131;Commisso v. Orshan, 85 A.D.3d at 845, 925 N.Y.S.2d 612;Rock City Sound, Inc. v. Bashian & Farber, LLP, 83 A.D.3d at 686, 920 N.Y.S.2d 394). Willful and contumacious conduct may be inferred from a party's repeated failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, coupled with inadequate explanations for the failures to comply or a failure to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time ( see Orgel v. Stewart Tit. Ins. Co., 91 A.D.3d at 924, 938 N.Y.S.2d 131;Commisso v. Orshan, 85 A.D.3d at 845, 925 N.Y.S.2d 612;Rock City Sound, Inc. v. Bashian & Farber, LLP, 83 A.D.3d at 686–687, 920 N.Y.S.2d 394). Here, the appellants' failure, over a period of one year and nine months, to comply with five court orders directing them to appear for a deposition, coupled with a lack of a reasonable excuse for that failure, supports an inference that their conduct was willful and contumacious ( see Orgel v. Stewart Tit. Ins. Co., 91 A.D.3d at 924, 938 N.Y.S.2d 131;Rock City Sound, Inc. v. Bashian & Farber, LLP, 83 A.D.3d at 686–687, 920 N.Y.S.2d 394;Commisso v. Orshan, 85 A.D.3d...