AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

GEORGE VOUTSINAS, JR., Respondent, v. BYRON VOUTSINAS, Appellant.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff's motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a determination of the defendant's motions.

While the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant had not yet provided some of the mandated disclosure in this action, the drastic remedy of striking the defendant's answer was not warranted because there was no clear showing that his failure to do so was willful and contumacious ( see CPLR 3126; Gateway Tit. Abstract, Inc. v Your Home Funding, Inc., 40 AD3d 919; Tine v Courtview Owners Corp., 40 AD3d 966; Torres v Lowinger, 12 AD3d 363). In light of our determination, the defendant's motions to compel further discovery are no longer academic. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a determination of the defendant's motions ( see Gomez v New York City Tr. Auth., 291 AD2d 431).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

GEORGE VOUTSINAS v. BYRON VOUTSINAS
(Sep 25, 2007)