From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baumann v. Dee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 1984
100 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

March 5, 1984


In a medical malpractice action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.), dated April 7, 1983, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint. ¶ Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. ¶ While the dismissal of a complaint under CPLR 3126 is a harsh remedy for failure to comply with a court order for discovery, it is nonetheless called for under the circumstances of this case. Plaintiff's failure to comply with the original order to disclose and the two subsequent conditional orders must be characterized as willful or contumacious (cf. Citizens Sav. Loan Assn. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 92 A.D.2d 907). Plaintiff's conduct indicates an utter disregard of any reasonable standards of diligence and at no point was there any showing that his claim was meritorious. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to a dismissal of the complaint. Bracken, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Baumann v. Dee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 1984
100 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Baumann v. Dee

Case Details

Full title:JOHN J. BAUMANN, Respondent, v. ROGER DEE, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 5, 1984

Citations

100 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Sawh v. Bridges

The fact that the instant action predated the IAS does not warrant our undermining Special Term's discretion.…

Wydallis v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Thus, the issue is not whether the interrogatories were proper, but whether the plaintiff's answers were…