Opinion
2002-07487
Submitted March 19, 2003.
April 21, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated July 1, 2002, as denied their motion to strike the answer of the defendants City of New York and New York City Police Department.
Zalman Schnurman, New York, N.Y. (Marc H. Miner of counsel), for appellants.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Grace Goodman of counsel), for respondents.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to strike the answer of the defendants City of New York and New York City Police Department (hereinafter collectively referred to as the City) for the City's failure to comply with discovery demands (see CPLR 3126). Actions should be resolved on their merits whenever possible, and the drastic remedy of the striking of a pleading should not be employed without a showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see Byrne v. City of New York, 301 A.D.2d 489; Vancott v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 271 A.D.2d 438; Cruzatti v. St. Mary's Hosp, 193 A.D.2d 579). Moreover, the Supreme Court is vested with broad discretion in supervising disclosure, and its determination that sanctions are not warranted will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion (see Cruzatti v. St. Mary's Hosp, supra; Ahroni v. City of New York, 175 A.D.2d 789). The City substantially complied with outstanding discovery requests, and was unable to produce certain documents because they did not exist or were not in its possession (see Byrne v. City of New York, supra; Romeo v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 379, 380; Corriel v. Volkswagen of Am., 127 A.D.2d 729, 731). Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the Supreme Court's determination.
FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.