From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garcia v. Kraniotakis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 7, 1996
232 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

October 7, 1996.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated October 5, 1995, as denied her motion to vacate the court's prior order dated March 20, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the defendant from testifying at trial.

Before: Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further, Ordered that the stay granted by decision and order on motion of this Court, dated September 4, 1996, is vacated forth-with; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.

The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 is generally a matter left to the discretion of the trial court. The penalty of preclusion is extreme and should only be levied when the failure to disclose has been willful or contumacious ( see, Moran v Franklin Gen. Hosp., 214 AD2d 707). In the present case, the willful and contumacious character of the defendant's default can be inferred from her noncompliance with at least two separate court orders directing depositions, coupled with either no excuses or an inadequate excuse for these defaults ( see, Glasburgh v Port Auth., 193 AD2d 441; Mills v Ducille, 170 AD2d 657, 658) Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding the defendant from testifying at trial, nor in denying her motion to vacate the court's order of preclusion.


Summaries of

Garcia v. Kraniotakis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 7, 1996
232 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Garcia v. Kraniotakis

Case Details

Full title:DEANNA GARCIA et al., Respondents, v. EFTIHIA KRANIOTAKIS, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 7, 1996

Citations

232 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
648 N.Y.S.2d 156

Citing Cases

BERTUCCIO v. SANTANA

Finally, on November 18, 2008, this court ordered defendant Santana to appear for an EBT on November 24, 2008…

Williams v. New Style Limousine, Inc.

(a) What constitutes a willful default, and is preclusionwarranted? It is well settled that the penalty of…