From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

6 Harbor Park Drive, LLC v. Town of North Hempstead

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Apr 22, 2015
127 A.D.3d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2013-01671, Index No. 11639/10.

2015-04-22

6 HARBOR PARK DRIVE, LLC, appellant, v. TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD, respondent, et al., defendants.

Parker Waichman LLP, Port Washington, N.Y. (Jay L.T. Breakstone of counsel), for appellant. Linda B. Zuech, Acting Town Attorney, Manhasset, N.Y. (Lorienton N.A. Palmer of counsel), for respondent.


Parker Waichman LLP, Port Washington, N.Y. (Jay L.T. Breakstone of counsel), for appellant. Linda B. Zuech, Acting Town Attorney, Manhasset, N.Y. (Lorienton N.A. Palmer of counsel), for respondent.

In a consolidated action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bruno, J.), dated December 18, 2012, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3126, inter alia, to strike the answer of the defendant Town of North Hempstead or to preclude that defendant from adducing evidence at trial.

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

“The determination whether to strike a pleading or to preclude evidence for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure lies within the sound discretion of the court” (Palmieri v. Piano Exch., Inc., 124 A.D.3d 611, 1 N.Y.S.3d 315; see Neenan v. Quinton, 110 A.D.3d 967, 968, 974 N.Y.S.2d 73). However, the drastic remedy of striking a pleading or even precluding evidence pursuant to CPLR 3126 should not be imposed unless the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders is clearly willful and contumacious ( see Mackenzie v. City of N.Y., 125 A.D.3d 821, 1 N.Y.S.3d 840; Palmieri v. Piano Exch., Inc., 124 A.D.3d at 612, 1 N.Y.S.3d 315; Gutman v. Cabrera, 121 A.D.3d 1042, 1043, 995 N.Y.S.2d 180). Here, the plaintiff failed to make such a showing.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126, inter alia, to strike the Town's answer or to preclude the Town from adducing evidence at trial.

RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

6 Harbor Park Drive, LLC v. Town of North Hempstead

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Apr 22, 2015
127 A.D.3d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

6 Harbor Park Drive, LLC v. Town of North Hempstead

Case Details

Full title:6 Harbor Park Drive, LLC, appellant, v. Town of North Hempstead…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Apr 22, 2015

Citations

127 A.D.3d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 3346
5 N.Y.S.3d 887

Citing Cases

Shahid v. City of N.Y.

Moreover, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the City's…

Schmidt v. Metro. Transp. Auth.

To invoke the drastic remedy of preclusion, the Court must determine that the party's failure to comply with…