From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Caval v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 15, 2011
89 A.D.3d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-11-15

Corrine CAVAL, appellant,v.CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.


Nora Constance Marino, Great Neck, N.Y., for appellant.Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Susan Paulson of counsel; Azziza J. Bensaid on the brief), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated November 8, 2010, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants' answer and granted the defendants' cross motion to compel her to file a note of issue.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to show that the defendants violated a conditional order of preclusion, that they otherwise failed to comply with the plaintiff's discovery demands, or that, if they did fail to so comply, such failure was willful or contumacious. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants' answer ( see Morano v. Westchester Paving & Sealing Corp., 7 A.D.3d 495, 496, 776 N.Y.S.2d 83; see also Mazza v. Seneca, 72 A.D.3d 754, 899 N.Y.S.2d 294; Steven L. Levitt & Assoc., P.C. v. Balkin, 54 A.D.3d 403, 406, 863 N.Y.S.2d 77; Kuzmin v. Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y., 22 A.D.3d 643, 644, 804 N.Y.S.2d 352). The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants' cross motion to compel the plaintiff to file a note of issue, as discovery was complete and the additional discovery to which the plaintiff claimed she was entitled was not material or necessary to the prosecution of her action ( cf. Steven L. Levitt & Assoc., P.C. v. Balkin, 54 A.D.3d at 406, 863 N.Y.S.2d 77; see generally Foster v. Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 A.D.3d 1139, 902 N.Y.S.2d 426; *724 Casabona v. Huntington Union Free School Dist., 29 A.D.3d 723, 816 N.Y.S.2d 143; Vyas v. Campbell, 4 A.D.3d 417, 418, 771 N.Y.S.2d 375).

RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, ENG and ROMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Caval v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 15, 2011
89 A.D.3d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Caval v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:Corrine CAVAL, appellant,v.CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 15, 2011

Citations

89 A.D.3d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8317
932 N.Y.S.2d 723

Citing Cases

Then v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA)…

Saunders v. Bohari

At the outset, the part of the motion that is to strike the answer of defendant Bohari is denied. Plaintiffs…