From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brooks v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 19, 2004
6 A.D.3d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-04535, 2004-02603.

Decided April 19, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated April 16, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer for failure to timely comply with certain court-ordered discovery. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court dated August 7, 2003, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the original determination ( see CPLR 5517[b]).

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart and Drake A. Colley of counsel), for appellants.

Randazzo Giffords, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack Isaac De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Julie T. Mark] of counsel), for respondents.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated April 16, 2003, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated August 7, 2003, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated August 7, 2003, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants' answer. The defendants' lack of diligence and approximately 7 ½ year delay in complying with disclosure demands and numerous court orders raises an inference that their conduct was willful and contumacious ( see Conch Assocs. v. PMCC Mtg. Corp., 303 A.D.2d 538; Birch Hall Farm v. Reed, 272 A.D.2d 282). The defendants failed to establish that they made diligent efforts to obtain the records and evidence that were produced on the eve of trial ( see Donovan v. City of New York, 239 A.D.2d 461) . Furthermore, the defendants' delay in complying with the plaintiffs' discovery demands prejudiced the plaintiffs ( see McIntosh v. City of New York, 275 A.D.2d 307).

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brooks v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 19, 2004
6 A.D.3d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Brooks v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:RAMONA BROOKS, ET AL., respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., appellants

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

Date published: Apr 19, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
774 N.Y.S.2d 831

Citing Cases

M.F. v. Albany Med. Ctr.

Failing to do so hinders that preparation. In view of this, the length of the dilatory conduct and the lack…

Bender v. Walter

Since the defendant failed to establish that she made any effort to comply with the plaintiffs repeated…