From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gross v. Edmer Sanitary Supply Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 17, 1994
201 A.D.2d 390 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

February 17, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Eli Wager, J.).


CPLR 3126, entitled "Penalties for refusal to comply with order or to disclose", grants the court, in the exercise of its discretion, wide latitude in framing appropriate relief where a party "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information", and empowers the court to "make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just", including, but not limited to, striking out pleadings or parts thereof, deeming the issues to which the information is relevant to be resolved for purposes of the action, or precluding the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.

It is therefore axiomatic that the imposition of CPLR 3126 sanctions is within the sound discretion of the court and, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal (see, Matter of Cullen, 143 A.D.2d 746).

The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike defendant Buckingham's answer pursuant to CPLR 3126, and, instead, imposing a sanction precluding defendant Buckingham from testifying or offering evidence at trial with respect to certain requested and court-ordered documents which Buckingham failed to produce, where, as here, the moving affidavit failed to set forth the type of dilatory and obstructive conduct which justified striking a pleading by conclusively showing that Buckingham's default was clearly willful and contumacious or due to bad faith (Cinelli v. Radcliffe, 35 A.D.2d 829), and the opposition papers indicate that Buckingham's failure to produce the previously available documents subject to disclosure resulted from its destruction of the actual documentation sought in the course of cessation of operations (cf., Corona v. A-B-C Packaging Mach. Corp., 129 A.D.2d 762; Ferraro v. Koncal Assocs., 97 A.D.2d 429).

We have reviewed the parties' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Gross v. Edmer Sanitary Supply Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 17, 1994
201 A.D.2d 390 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Gross v. Edmer Sanitary Supply Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:IRVING GROSS et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. EDMER SANITARY SUPPLY CO.…

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

Date published: Feb 17, 1994

Citations

201 A.D.2d 390 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
607 N.Y.S.2d 927

Citing Cases

Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp

The Appellate Division properly found no abuse of Supreme Court's discretion and correctly affirmed. ( Marks…

Zak v. Mintz

Plaintiff declined the court's offer to submit interrogatories or to conduct a continued deposition of…