Opinion
Index No. 29517/09 No. 2018-14514
11-17-2021
Patrice James Irving, etc., appellant, v. Four Seasons Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, et al., defendants, Parkshore Health Care, LLC, respondent. Index No. 29517/09
Jonathan Rice (Kenneth J. Gorman, New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant. Fumuso, Kelly, Swart, Farrell, Polin & Christesen, LLP, Hauppauge, NY (Michelle C. Acosta of counsel), for respondent.
Argued - October 19, 2021
D67690 T/htr
Jonathan Rice (Kenneth J. Gorman, New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.
Fumuso, Kelly, Swart, Farrell, Polin & Christesen, LLP, Hauppauge, NY (Michelle C. Acosta of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P. COLLEEN D. DUFFY BETSY BARROS PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin Schneier, J.H.O.), dated October 16, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, in effect, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to strike the answer of the defendant Parkshore Health Care, LLC, or to preclude that defendant from offering any evidence at trial.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In 2009, the plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Parkshore Health Care, LLC (hereinafter the defendant), to recover damages for personal injuries, medical malpractice, and related claims. As is relevant to this appeal, in June 2018 the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to strike the defendant's answer or preclude the defendant from offering any evidence at trial, contending that the defendant failed to comply with prior orders regarding discovery. In an order dated October 16, 2018, the Supreme Court, inter alia, in effect, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff appeals.
Although the Supreme Court has broad discretion to determine the nature and degree of a sanction to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 (see Sweet Constructors, LLC v Wallkill Med. Dev., LLC, 188 A.D.3d 1279, 1280; Palmieri v Piano Exch., Inc., 124 A.D.3d 611, 612), "the drastic remedy of striking a pleading or even precluding evidence . . . should not be imposed unless the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders is clearly willful and contumacious" (Palmieri v Piano Exch., Inc., 124 A.D.3d at 612; see Sweet Constructors, LLC v Wallkill Med. Dev., LLC, 188 A.D.3d at 1280). Here, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant's conduct was willful and contumacious (see De Leo v State-Whitehall Co., 126 A.D.3d 750, 752; Scorzari v Pezza, 111 A.D.3d 916, 917).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to strike the defendant's answer or preclude it from offering any evidence at trial.
AUSTIN, J.P., DUFFY, BARROS and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.