Opinion
07-05-2016
Peter Toumbekis, Brooklyn, for appellants. Concetta G. Spirio, Sayville, for respondent.
Peter Toumbekis, Brooklyn, for appellants.
Concetta G. Spirio, Sayville, for respondent.
Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered November 5, 2014, which, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination granting plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' answer and enter judgment in plaintiff's favor, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in striking defendants' answer, including their remaining counterclaim, given their “willful and repeated failure to comply with court-ordered discovery” (Soto–Law v. Law, 264 A.D.2d 695, 696, 695 N.Y.S.2d 564 [1st Dept.1999] ). After repeated discovery violations for which defendants were sanctioned, the individual defendant failed to appear for his deposition, which had already been rescheduled. Defendants' behavior, and their failure to offer a reasonable excuse for it, supported the motion court's finding of willfulness (see Fish & Richardson, P.C. v. Schindler, 75 A.D.3d 219, 221–222, 901 N.Y.S.2d 598 [1st Dept.2010] ; Kutner v. Feiden, Dweck & Sladkus, 223 A.D.2d 488, 489, 637 N.Y.S.2d 15 [1st Dept.1996], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 802, 644 N.Y.S.2d 689, 667 N.E.2d 339 [1996] ).
SWEENY, J.P., ACOSTA, FEINMAN, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ., concur.