From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Giraldo v. Highmark Indep., LLC

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Aug 28, 2019
175 A.D.3d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2018–08738 Index No. 11870/14

08-28-2019

Mauro GIRALDO, et al., Respondents, v. HIGHMARK INDEPENDENT, LLC, et al., Defendants, Sublink, Ltd., Appellant.

Camacho Mauro Mulholland, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen M. Mulholland and Rachel M. Smith of counsel), for Appellant. Buttafuoco & Associates, PLLC, Woodbury, N.Y. (Ellen Buchholz and Shawn Alfano of counsel), for Respondents.


Camacho Mauro Mulholland, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen M. Mulholland and Rachel M. Smith of counsel), for Appellant.

Buttafuoco & Associates, PLLC, Woodbury, N.Y. (Ellen Buchholz and Shawn Alfano of counsel), for Respondents.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, BETSY BARROS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The motion court has broad discretion to determine the nature and degree of the sanction to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 (see Mears v. Long , 149 A.D.3d 823, 52 N.Y.S.3d 124 ). Before a court invokes the drastic remedy of precluding a party from offering evidence at trial, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious (see Zakhidov v. Boulevard Tenants Corp. , 96 A.D.3d 737, 738, 945 N.Y.S.2d 756 ). Willful and contumacious conduct may be inferred from a party's repeated failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, coupled with inadequate explanations for the failures to comply, or a failure to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time (see Gutman v. Cabrera , 121 A.D.3d 1042, 1043, 995 N.Y.S.2d 180 ; Arpino v. F.J.F. & Sons Elec. Co., Inc. , 102 A.D.3d 201, 210, 959 N.Y.S.2d 74 ).

Here, the willful and contumacious character of the appellant's conduct can be inferred from its repeated failures to produce a representative for a deposition. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to strike the appellant's answer to the extent of precluding it from offering evidence at trial (see Rogers v. Howard Realty Estates, Inc. , 145 A.D.3d 1051, 42 N.Y.S.3d 866 ; Commisso v. Orshan , 85 A.D.3d 845, 925 N.Y.S.2d 612 ).

LEVENTHAL, J.P., DUFFY, BARROS and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Giraldo v. Highmark Indep., LLC

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Aug 28, 2019
175 A.D.3d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Giraldo v. Highmark Indep., LLC

Case Details

Full title:Mauro Giraldo, et al., respondents, v. Highmark Independent, LLC, et al.…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Aug 28, 2019

Citations

175 A.D.3d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 6382
108 N.Y.S.3d 865

Citing Cases

Yorizzo v. Maplecorp, LLC

The determination of the nature and degree of the sanction to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 is entrusted…

Sweet Constructors, LLC v. Wallkill Med. Dev., LLC

The plaintiff appeals. Although the motion court has broad discretion to determine the nature and degree of…