From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santini v. Alexander Grant Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 4, 1997
245 A.D.2d 30 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 4, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.).


The willful and contumacious character of plaintiffs' failure to produce the missing pages is evident from their noncompliance with three court orders, the last of which specifically directed them to produce the subject pages, their failure to respond to correspondence from defendants regarding the missing pages and their failure to offer any credible excuse for these defaults ( see, Glasburgh v. Port Auth., 193 A.D.2d 441; Mills v. Ducille, 170 A.D.2d 657, 658). Under these circumstances, we find that plaintiffs should be precluded from introducing the documents into evidence. While preclusion is obviously a harsh remedy, it is clearly warranted where repeated, legitimate demands on the part of an adversary, as well as orders of the court, are met with dissimulation rather than compliance.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Santini v. Alexander Grant Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 4, 1997
245 A.D.2d 30 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Santini v. Alexander Grant Company

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN L. SANTINI et al., Respondents v. ALEXANDER GRANT COMPANY et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 4, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 30 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 784

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Dantas

Discussion Under CPLR 3126, a court has discretion to strike a pleading or prohibit a party from supporting…

Shaw v. Bronfman

Before: Sullivan, P.J., Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman, JJ. Plaintiffs were properly precluded from offering…