Opinion
08-09-2017
Michael Williams, Jamaica, NY, appellant pro se. Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York, NY (David Dunn, Chava Brandriss, and Heather R. Gushue of counsel), for respondent.
Michael Williams, Jamaica, NY, appellant pro se.
Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York, NY (David Dunn, Chava Brandriss, and Heather R. Gushue of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Michael Williams appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Livote, J.), entered December 16, 2014, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to comply with discovery demands.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Where, as here, a defendant defaults in answering the complaint, he or she forfeits the right to engage in discovery (see Rudra v. Friedman, 123 A.D.3d 1104, 1104, 1 N.Y.S.3d 187 ; Kolonkowski v. Daily News, L.P., 112 A.D.3d 677, 977 N.Y.S.2d 271 ; Singh v. Friedson, 36 A.D.3d 605, 606, 829 N.Y.S.2d 552 ; Amato v. Fast Repair, Inc., 15 A.D.3d 429, 430, 790 N.Y.S.2d 510 ; Santiago v. Siega, 255 A.D.2d 307, 307–308, 679 N.Y.S.2d 341 ). Accordingly, since the defendant Michael Williams defaulted in answering the complaint, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with discovery demands.
CHAMBERS, J.P., MILLER, HINDS–RADIX and LASALLE, JJ., concur.