Garcia v. City of New York

4 Citing cases

  1. Arpino v. F.J.F. & Sons Elec. Co.

    102 A.D.3d 201 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 157 times   1 Legal Analyses

    As the Court of Appeals has noted, the failure of attorneys to comply with court-ordered deadlines has increasingly become a problem in our court system ( see Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 N.Y.3d 74, 81, 917 N.Y.S.2d 68, 942 N.E.2d 277;Andrea v. Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. [ Habiterra Assoc.], 5 N.Y.3d 514, 521, 806 N.Y.S.2d 453, 840 N.E.2d 565;Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d 118, 123, 700 N.Y.S.2d 87, 722 N.E.2d 55). Compliance requires not only a timely response, but a good-faith effort to provide a meaningful response ( see Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d at 123, 700 N.Y.S.2d 87, 722 N.E.2d 55;see also Garcia v. City of New York, 5 A.D.3d 725, 726, 774 N.Y.S.2d 173;Gomez v. Gateway Demolition Corp., 293 A.D.2d 649, 650, 740 N.Y.S.2d 652). The failure to comply with deadlines and provide good-faith responses to discovery demands “impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and the adjudication of claims” ( see Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 N.Y.3d at 81, 917 N.Y.S.2d 68, 942 N.E.2d 277;Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d at 123, 700 N.Y.S.2d 87, 722 N.E.2d 55).

  2. Willis v. Public Stor.

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 52025 (N.Y. App. Term 2010)

    By order entered June 19, 2009, the Civil Court conditionally granted the motion. Since plaintiff failed to respond to defendant's discovery demands as required by the April 2, 2009 order, this order became absolute ( see Callaghan v Curtis, 48 AD3d 501; Garcia v City of New York, 5 AD3d 725). To avoid the adverse impact of the conditional order of preclusion, plaintiff was required to demonstrate, among other things, an excusable default ( see Callaghan, 48 AD3d at 501).

  3. Llanos v. Casale Constr. Servs.

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 34083 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

    (see Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74, 81 [2010]; Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C., 5 NY3d 514, 521 [2005]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]). Compliance requires not only a timely response, but a good-faith effort to provide a meaningful response (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d at 123; see also Garcia v City of New York, 5 AD3d 725, 726 [2d Dept 2004]; Gomez v Gateway Demolition Corp., 293 AD2d 649, 650 [2d Dept 2002]). The failure to comply with deadlines and provide good faith responses to discovery demands 'impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and the adjudication of claims' (see Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d at 81; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d at 123)."

  4. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Leighton Constr. Corp.

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 34291 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

    The Second Department in Arpino v F.J.F & Sons Electric Co., Inc., 102 A.D.3d 201 [2d Dept 2012], recognized the difficulty that courts face when parties or their attorneys fail to comply with court-ordered discovery deadlines: Compliance requires not only a timely response, but a good-faith effort to provide a meaningful response (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d at 123; see also Garcia v City of New York, 5 A.D.3d 725, 726 [2004]; Gomez v Gateway Demolition Corp., 293 A.D.2d 649, 650 [2002]). The failure to comply with deadlines and provide good-faith responses to discovery demands 'impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and the adjudication of claims' (see Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 N.Y.3d at 81; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d at 123).