Opinion
2014-11-5
David HOLAND, et al., appellants, v. Salvatore CASCINO, respondent.
Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe, Knauer & McNally, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Richard Hamburger and Inna N. Cordiale of counsel), for appellants. Robinson Brog Leinward Greene Genovese & Gluck, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Nicholas Caputo and Jonathan W. Rich of counsel), for respondent.
Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe, Knauer & McNally, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Richard Hamburger and Inna N. Cordiale of counsel), for appellants. Robinson Brog Leinward Greene Genovese & Gluck, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Nicholas Caputo and Jonathan W. Rich of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, for an accounting and to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, Jr., J.), dated February 10, 2014, which granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint and to strike the reply to counterclaims for failure to comply with discovery demands.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint and to strike the reply to counterclaims for failure to comply with discovery demands is denied.
The determination whether to strike a pleading lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ( seeCPLR 3126[3]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 119 A.D.3d 903, 903–904, 990 N.Y.S.2d 577; Walter B. Melvin, Architects, LLC v. 24 Aqueduct Lane Condominium, 51 A.D.3d 784, 785, 857 N.Y.S.2d 697). However, the drastic remedy of striking a pleading is not appropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands was willful or contumacious ( seeCPLR 3126[3]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 119 A.D.3d at 903, 990 N.Y.S.2d 577; Walter B. Melvin, Architects, LLC v. 24 Aqueduct Lane Condominium, 51 A.D.3d at 785, 857 N.Y.S.2d 697; Harris v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 663, 664, 622 N.Y.S.2d 289).
In this case, the plaintiffs served a response to the defendant's notice for discovery and inspection, and answers to interrogatories, as they were directed to do by court order. Thereafter, they produced further documents, as set forth in a stipulation. While the defendant was clearly dissatisfied with the responses to his demands, there was no showing of a pattern of willful failure to respond to discovery demands or comply with disclosure orders, so as to justify dismissing the complaint and striking the reply to counterclaims ( see Matter of Blauman–Spindler v. Blauman, 68 A.D.3d 1105, 1107, 892 N.Y.S.2d 143; Walter B. Melvin, Architects, LLC v. 24 Aqueduct Lane Condominium, 51 A.D.3d at 785, 857 N.Y.S.2d 697).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint and to strike the reply to counterclaims.