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

RAMONA BROOKS, ET AL., respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., appellants.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated April 16, 2003, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated August 7, 2003, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated August 7, 2003, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants' answer. The defendants' lack of diligence and approximately 7 ½ year delay in complying with disclosure demands and numerous court orders raises an inference that their conduct was willful and contumacious ( see Conch Assocs. v. PMCC Mtg. Corp., 303 A.D.2d 538; Birch Hall Farm v. Reed, 272 A.D.2d 282). The defendants failed to establish that they made diligent efforts to obtain the records and evidence that were produced on the eve of trial ( see Donovan v. City of New York, 239 A.D.2d 461) . Furthermore, the defendants' delay in complying with the plaintiffs' discovery demands prejudiced the plaintiffs ( see McIntosh v. City of New York, 275 A.D.2d 307).

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BROOKS v. CITY OF NEW YORK
(Apr 19, 2004)