Opinion
2005-1319 K C.
Decided March 2, 2006.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Milagros A. Matos, J.), entered August 9, 2005. The order granted defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 by directing plaintiff to provide an amended response to defendants' notice to produce and denied plaintiff's cross motion for a protective order.
Order affirmed without costs.
PRESENT:: PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ
In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, an order entered March 18, 2005 denied plaintiff's prior motion for summary judgment and granted defendants' cross motion to compel plaintiff to respond to defendants' discovery demands. The order, which was served with notice of entry, directed plaintiff to respond to defendants' notice to produce within 45 days. Defendants later moved for relief pursuant to CPLR 3126 due to plaintiff's failure to serve a response to the notice to produce as required by the court's order. The court gave plaintiff an additional month to serve an amended response and noted that plaintiff's time to object to defendant's discovery requests had long since expired. Nevertheless, the response ultimately served by plaintiff objected to two of defendants' discovery demands. Defendants again moved pursuant to CPLR 3126 due to plaintiff's continued failure to comply with the prior court orders and plaintiff cross-moved for a protective order. In the order from which plaintiff appeals, the court directed plaintiff to provide an amended response to defendants' notice to produce and denied plaintiff's cross motion for a protective order.
As noted by the Court of Appeals, "[i]f the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity" ( Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123). In the instant case, since plaintiff failed to appeal from the order which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted defendants' cross motion to compel discovery, plaintiff was obligated to provide such discovery ( id.). Plaintiff's willful failure to satisfy its court-ordered discovery obligations resulted in two additional motions by defendants pursuant to CPLR 3126, thereby wasting scarce judicial resources. Such behavior cannot be tolerated. Accordingly the order is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.