From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Viteritti v. Gelfand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 31, 2001
289 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2001-11073, 2001-03831

Submitted November 21, 2001.

December 31, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Long Eyeland Industries, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated March 13, 2001, which conditionally granted the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike its answer unless its representative appeared for a deposition within a specified time.

Chesney Murphy, LLP, Baldwin, N.Y. (Henry D. Nelkin of counsel), for appellant.

Gacovino, Lake Associates, P.C., Sayville, N Y (Steven D. Gacovino and Warren Luccitti of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof striking the defendant's answer unless the appellant's representative appeared for a deposition and substituting therefor a provision precluding the appellant from offering testimony at trial unless its representative appears for a deposition at a time and place mutually agreeable to the parties, but in no event less than 30 days before trial, and otherwise denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements."

To invoke the drastic remedy of striking an answer, it must be shown that a defendant's failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful, deliberate, and contumacious conduct (see, CPLR 3126; Solomon v. Horie Karate Dojo, 283 A.D.2d 480; Vancott v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 271 A.D.2d 438). No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the appropriate remedy if the representative of the defendant Long Eyeland Industries, Inc., is not located and deposed before trial is to preclude the defendant's testimony at trial (see, Cianciolo v. Trism Specialized Carriers, 274 A.D.2d 369; Solomon v. Horie Karate Dojo, supra).

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Viteritti v. Gelfand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 31, 2001
289 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Viteritti v. Gelfand

Case Details

Full title:JACK VITERITTI, Respondent, v. HOWARD GELFAND, Defendant, LONG EYELAND…

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

Date published: Dec 31, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
735 N.Y.S.2d 801

Citing Cases

Williams v. Ryder TRS, Inc.

In our opinion, the plaintiffs did not make this showing. Accordingly, the appropriate remedy was to preclude…

Mavroidis v. Artavanis, 2009 NY Slip Op 31819(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 4/21/2009)

As regards plaintiffs' request to strike Constantina Artavanis' answer, "[t]he nature and degree of the…