Opinion
13825 Index No. 401917/13 Case No. 2020-04579
05-13-2021
Shalaine Y. JONES, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. FEGS–WECARE/HUMAN RESOURCES, NYC, Defendant–Respondent.
Shalaine Y. Jones, appellant pro se. Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York (Steven C. Mandell of counsel), for respondent.
Shalaine Y. Jones, appellant pro se.
Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York (Steven C. Mandell of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kennedy, Shulman, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (J. Machelle Sweeting, J.), entered October 23, 2020, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The complaint was properly dismissed based on plaintiff's failure to comply with a prior court order dated April 23, 2019, which had directed her to answer questions about the period from August 2012 to the present (see Orner v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 305 A.D.2d 307, 309, 761 N.Y.S.2d 603 [1st Dept. 2003] ). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, records exchanged during discovery may be used at, and are proper topics of questioning during, examinations before trial. The fact that some documents may be inadmissible at trial does not restrict use of those documents at examinations before trial (see Slapo v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 186 A.D.3d 1281, 1288, 130 N.Y.S.3d 478 [2d Dept. 2020] ).
There is no dispute that during her continued examination before trial in October 2019, plaintiff knowingly and willfully failed to comply the court's directive that she answer questions within the timeframe of August 2012 to present (see Forbes v. New York City Tr. Auth., 88 A.D.3d 546, 547, 931 N.Y.S.2d 220 [1st Dept. 2011] ; Henderson–Jones v. City of New York, 87 A.D.3d 498, 504, 928 N.Y.S.2d 536 [1st Dept. 2011] ). Plaintiff's disagreement with the April 2019 order was not a reasonable excuse for her failure to comply with its directives (see Anderson & Anderson LLP–Guangzhou v. North Am. Foreign Trading Corp., 165 A.D.3d 511, 512, 87 N.Y.S.3d 180 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Reidel v. Ryder TRS, Inc., 13 A.D.3d 170, 171, 786 N.Y.S.2d 487 [1st Dept. 2004] ).