Opinion
10-24-2017
Robert MOSKOWITZ, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Eileen HICKEY, Defendant–Appellant, Jane Doe, et al., Defendants.
Sokolski & Zekaria, P.C., New York (Daphna Zekaria of counsel), for appellant. Peluso & Touger, LLP, New York (Carl T. Peluso of counsel), for respondent.
Sokolski & Zekaria, P.C., New York (Daphna Zekaria of counsel), for appellant.
Peluso & Touger, LLP, New York (Carl T. Peluso of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered on or about September 1, 2016, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion to strike the answer of defendant Eileen Hickey, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in striking Hickey's answer on account of her failure to comply with three successive court orders directing her to respond to plaintiff's discovery demands (see Loeb v. Assara N.Y. I L.P., 118 A.D.3d 457, 987 N.Y.S.2d 365 [1st Dept.2014] ; Oasis Sportswear, Inc. v. Rego, 95 A.D.3d 592, 944 N.Y.S.2d 101 [1st Dept.2012] ). In response to plaintiff's showing that Hickey's conduct was willful and contumacious, Hickey failed to tender any reasonable excuse for her repeated noncompliance (see Menkes v. Delikat, 148 A.D.3d 442, 50 N.Y.S.3d 318 [1st Dept.2017] ; Reidel v. Ryder TRS, Inc., 13 A.D.3d 170, 786 N.Y.S.2d 487 [1st Dept.2004] ).
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RICHTER, ANDRIAS, GISCHE, MOULTON, JJ., concur.