In Renelique v. Lancer Insurance Company, 53 Misc.3d 145, the Appellate Term affirmed the lower Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff medical provider’s Summons and Complaint for failing to comply with court ordered discovery, after single default.

Specifically, the Civil Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion and directed plaintiff to provide discovery responses to outstanding discovery demands within 60 days.  Plaintiff’s time to respond had passed, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3126. Thereafter, plaintiff served its opposition to the motion along with written responses to defendant’s discovery demands. The Civil Court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint.  The court said as follows:

The determination of whether to strike a pleading for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure lies within the sound discretion of the motion court (see CPLR 3126; Orgel v Stewart Tit. Ins. Co., 91 AD3d 922 [2012], Giano v Ioannou, 78 AD3d 768 [2010], Fishbane v Chelsea Hall, LLC, 65 AD3d 1079 [2009]; Mir v Saad, 54 AD3d 914 [2008]; see also Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]). Although dismissing a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a drastic remedy, it is warranted where a party’s conduct is shown to be willful, contumacious or in bad faith (see Rock City Sound, Inc. v Bashian & Farber, LLP, 83 AD3d 685 [2011]). In the case at bar, that plaintiff’s conduct was willful and contumacious can be inferred from its refusal to adequately comply with discovery requests, even after being directed to do so by court order, as well as from the absence of a reasonable excuse for its failure to comply (see Tos v Jackson Hgts. Care Ctr., LLC, 91 AD3d 943 [2012]; Rowell v Joyce, 10 AD3d 601 [2004]).

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *