Opinion
No. 570736/15.
12-15-2015
Order (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered on or about December 5, 2014, affirmed, with $10 costs.
Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in granting a preclusion order, where plaintiff failed to furnish the original “debt acknowledgment” document in response to defendant's discovery demand and the parties' stipulation, and subsequently claimed that document became lost (see Summit Waterproofing & Restoration Corp. v. Scarsdale Country Estates Owners, 228 A.D.2d 431 [1996] ; Christian v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 135 [2000] ). The nature and degree of penalty, if any, to be imposed by a court pursuant to CPLR 3126, is a matter lying squarely within the discretion of the trial court (see Cherry v. Herbert & Co., 212 A.D.2d 203, 209 [1995] ), and we discern no abuse of discretion here in that regard.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.