Moore v. Nizam

1 Citing case

  1. Tantaros v. Krechmer

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 31059 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    Accordingly, since plaintiff's failure to comply with three court orders was willful and contumacious and she has not advanced a reasonable justification, sanctions are warranted. (See JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. v Nehorayoff, 223 A.D.3d 655, 658 [1st Dept 2024] [single failure to comply with court discovery order, along with failure to timely oppose motions to strike, sufficient to warrant striking amended answer]; Morales v Valeo, 218 A.D.3d 676, 678 [2d Dept 2023] [Willful and contumacious conduct inferred from defendant's "repeated failures over an extended period of time to comply with court-ordered discovery"]; Moore v Nizam, 192 A.D.3d 641, 642 [1st Dept 2021] [Motion court providently exercised its discretion in striking the complaint and dismissing the action since plaintiff failed to explain why he did not comply with six discovery orders issued between 2018 and 2019]; Almonte v KSI Trading Corp., 172 A.D.3d 660, 661 [1st Dept 2019] ["Court properly granted defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126, since plaintiff's continued pattern of noncompliance with court orders warranted an inference of willful noncompliance"]; SW Prods., Inc. v CBGB Festival, LLC, 172 A.D.3d 593, 593 [1st Dept 2019] [Provident exercise of motion court's discretion where record demonstrates plaintiff willfully and contumaciously failed to comply with its discovery obligations as set forth in several court orders]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Branker, 177 A.D.3d 954, 957-959 [2d Dept 2019] [finding plaintiff's excuse for failing to comply unavailing since it did not pursue appeals of previous orders; sanctions deemed appropriate where co