From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons Ives

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1998
256 A.D.2d 31 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 1, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.).


In ruling upon plaintiff's motion to strike defendants-respondents' pleadings, the motion court properly inquired, not merely as to whether there had been spoliation of evidence, but also as to whether defendants-respondents' failure to comply with discovery orders had been willful, contumacious, or effected in bad faith (see, Orlando v. Arcade Cleaning Corp., 253 A.D.2d 362; cf., Squitieri v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 201). The court's conclusion that plaintiff had not met her burden as movant (see, Forman v. Jamesway Corp., 175 A.D.2d 514, 515) to demonstrate defendants-respondents' willful noncompliance with their discovery obligations, and accordingly had not demonstrated her right to the drastic relief requested, did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Dauria v. City of New York, 127 A.D.2d 459, 460).

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Hill v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons Ives

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1998
256 A.D.2d 31 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Hill v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons Ives

Case Details

Full title:PANATHY HILL, Appellant, v. DOUGLAS ELLIMAN-GIBBONS IVES et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 1, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 31 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
680 N.Y.S.2d 848

Citing Cases

Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose

This record also clearly indicates that, given the singularity of this evidence (see, DiDomenico v. CS…

Klein v. Seenauth

ANALYSIS In a recent Appellate Division, Second Department, decision it was held that: "Separate and apart…