Opinion
9016 Index 157134/16
04-18-2019
Jasmina HUSOVIC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STRUCTURE TONE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Barry McTiernan & Moore LLC, New York (Laurel A. Wedinger of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Craig Rosuck, PC, New York (Elliot Budashewitz of counsel), for respondent.
Barry McTiernan & Moore LLC, New York (Laurel A. Wedinger of counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of Craig Rosuck, PC, New York (Elliot Budashewitz of counsel), for respondent.
Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kahn, Gesmer, Oing, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered April 30, 2018, which denied defendant's motion to vacate an order, entered on or about December 13, 2017, imposing discovery sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
"If any party ... refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed" the court may, inter alia, make an order "that the issues to which the information is relevant shall be deemed resolved for purposes of the action in accordance with the claims of the party obtaining the order" ( CPLR 3126[1] ; Longo v. Armor El. Co., 307 A.D.2d 848, 849, 763 N.Y.S.2d 597 [1st Dept. 2003] ). A determination of sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3216 lies in the trial court's discretion and should not be set aside absent a clear abuse of discretion (see Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d 118, 122, 700 N.Y.S.2d 87, 722 N.E.2d 55 [1999] ; De Socio v. 136 E. 56th St. Owners, Inc., 74 A.D.3d 606, 607, 903 N.Y.S.2d 45 [1st Dept. 2010] [citing Arts4All, Ltd. v. Hancock, 54 A.D.3d 286, 286, 863 N.Y.S.2d 193 [1st Dept. 2008], affd 12 N.Y.3d 846, 881 N.Y.S.2d 390, 909 N.E.2d 83 [2009], cert denied 559 U.S. 905, 130 S.Ct. 1301, 175 L.Ed.2d 1076 [2010] ).
Here, Supreme Court issued three separate discovery orders directing defendant to produce documents, including one order that expressly laid out what documents needed to be provided and warned that failure to comply may result in sanctions. Defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its failure to comply (see Fish & Richardson, P.C. v. Schindler, 75 A.D.3d 219, 221–222, 901 N.Y.S.2d 598 [1st Dept. 2010] ). Accordingly, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in resolving limited factual issues in favor of plaintiff ( CPLR 3126[1] ; Rogers v. Howard Realty Estates, Inc ., 145 A.D.3d 1051, 1052, 42 N.Y.S.3d 866 [2d Dept. 2016] ).