N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3126

Section 3126 leaves the decision whether to impose discovery sanctions to the court’s discretion.

Ansari v. MB Hamptons, LLC · filed 2016-03-30

The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross motion for discovery sanctions or, in the alternative, to compel the defendant to respond to his ... discovery demands (see CPLR 3126; Lopes v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 744, 744 [2009]; Denoyelles v Gallagher, 40 AD3d 1027 [2007]).

CPLR 3126 sanctions should be proportionate to the discovery violation; substantial compliance does not warrant sanctions for willful noncompliance.

Smith v. County of Nassau · filed 2016-04-06

Although the “nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” ... the sanction imposed should be commensurate with the particular disobedience, if any. Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in concluding that the County failed to comply with its discovery obligations in a manner that was willful and contumacious. To the contrary, we find that the County substantially complied with its discovery obligations.

CPLR 3126 permits conditional preclusion of testimony and evidence unless a party submits to further deposition.

Morales v. Zherka · filed 2016-06-08

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3126 to conditionally preclude the defendants from disputing certain testimony by the plaintiff and from offering certain evidence at trial unless the appellant submits to further deposition.

CPLR 3126 discovery sanctions may be denied when there is no basis to impose them.

Estate of Mojica v. Harlem River Park Houses, Inc. · filed 2016-06-23

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ discovery motions (Gumbs v Flushing Town Ctr. III, L.P., 114 AD3d 573, 574 [1st Dept 2014]) and in determining that there was no basis to impose discovery sanctions on plaintiffs (see e.g. Sowerby v Camarda, 20 AD3d 411 [2d Dept 2005]).

Section 3126 permits monetary discovery sanctions for a party’s delayed production of evidence.

Arbor Realty Funding, LLC v. Herrick, Feinstein LLP · filed 2016-06-28

In addition, plaintiff shall be required to pay discovery sanctions of $10,000 to defendant Herrick, Feinstein, LLP for its failure to produce the loan committee meeting minutes until after the motion court had decided the initial spoliation motion (CPLR 3126).

CPLR 3126 discovery sanctions remain in place on appeal unless the trial court clearly abused its discretion.

FINOCCHI, JR., CARMEN J. v. LIVE NATION, INC. · filed 2016-07-01

Initially, although we agree with defendants that plaintiffs are not entitled to equitable or judicial estoppel with respect to defendants’ failure to produce the contract between CPI and Gentour in a timely fashion, we reject defendants’ contention that we should overturn the sanction imposed by the court for that failure pursuant to CPLR 3126. We likewise reject plaintiffs’ contention on their cross appeal that we should impose more severe sanctions. A sanction for disclosure noncompliance “will remain undisturbed unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion” (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v Global Strat Inc., 22 NY3d 877, 880), and we perceive no such abuse of discretion here.

Section 3126 permits a court to deny requests to dismiss a complaint or strike an answer for discovery failures when there is no evidence of willful or contumacious conduct.

Caban v. Rzak Development Inc. · filed 2015-10-28

Under the circumstances of this case, in the absence of any evidence of willful or contumacious conduct, the denial of the ... motions and the cross motion was a provident exercise of discretion (see Oller v Liberty Lines Tr., Inc., 111 AD3d 903 [2013]; Hoi Wah Lai v Mack, 89 AD3d 990 [2011]).

Section 3126 permits sanctions for disobeying a disclosure order without a finding that the conduct was frivolous.

Vandashield Ltd. v. Isaacson · filed 2017-01-17

The court imposed sanctions on defendants (as opposed to their counsel) pursuant to both CPLR 3126 and 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. To the extent sanctions were imposed pursuant to the former, the court was not required to find that defendants’ behavior was frivolous (New v Scores Entertainment, 255 AD2d 108, 109 [1st Dept 1998]).

Striking an answer or awarding sanctions under CPLR 3126 is unwarranted when delayed disclosure is not willful or contumacious, violates no outstanding discovery order, and causes no prejudice.

Joseph v. Saint Joseph's Medical Center · filed 2017-02-16

The court properly denied that branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking to strike defendant’s answer, and for an award of sanctions and attorneys’ fees. The record demonstrates that defendant’s delay in providing the requested medical records of the decedent was not willful or contumacious, or in violation of any outstanding discovery orders, and did not prejudice plaintiff (see CPLR 3126; Catarine v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 290 AD2d 213, 215 [1st Dept 2002]).

Section 3126 permits sanctions when a party’s pattern of noncompliance with discovery demands and a court-ordered stipulation supports an inference of willful and contumacious conduct.

Jackson v. OpenCommunications Omnimedia, LLC · filed 2017-02-28

The court’s grant of relief under CPLR 3126 was proper. Contrary to the court’s conclusion, we find that plaintiff’s pattern of noncompliance with discovery demands and a court-ordered stipulation supports an inference of willful and contumacious conduct, which farther justifies imposition of sanctions (see e.g. Jones v Green, 34 AD3d 260, 261 [1st Dept 2006]; Pimental v City of New York, 246 AD2d 467 [1st Dept 1998]).

CPLR 3126 does not permit sanctions against a party for alleged discovery violations by nonparties who are not under that party’s control.

Matter of Anthony S. v. Monique T.B. · filed 2017-03-28

Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the mother’s CPLR 3126 motion to dismiss the father’s modification petition. The paternal grandmother and the parties’ eldest daughter are not parties to the proceeding and there is no evidence that they were under the father’s control (see Fox v Fox, 9 AD3d 549, 550 [3d Dept 2004]). The parties’ daughter was 19 years old and was represented by her own counsel at the time of the motion. Accordingly, there is no basis to sanction the father for the alleged discovery violations of the paternal grandmother and the parties’ daughter (see id.', see also CPLR 3126).

Section 3126 gives the motion court discretion to preclude evidence when a party repeatedly and willfully fails to comply with discovery orders.

Rosenstock v. Rosenstock · filed 2017-04-12

Additionally, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the mother from offering any evidence at trial on the issue of her finances which contradicts the information that she submitted in opposition to the motion. Resolution of discovery disputes and the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 are matters within the sound discretion of the motion court (see Isaacs v Isaacs, 71 AD3d 951, 952 [2010]; Lotardo v Lotardo, 31 AD3d 504 [2006]).

Section 3126 does not permit dismissal for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery when no motion requests that relief.

Atmara, Inc. v. Panoramic Ace Properties, Inc. · filed 2017-06-21

Furthermore, the complaint could not have properly been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3126 based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with court-ordered discovery since there was no motion requesting that relief (see CPLR 3124, 3126; Goodman v Lempa, 124 AD3d 581, 581 [2015]; Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d 1137, 1138 [2010]; Xand Corp. v Reliable Sys. Alternatives Corp., 35 AD3d 849 [2006]; Postel v New York Univ. Hosp., 262 AD2d 40, 42 [1999]).

Section 3126 sanctions may be denied when the requesting party fails to show that the demanded disclosure is material and necessary.

Hudson City Savings Bank v. 59 Sands Point, LLC · filed 2017-08-09

Moreover, in view of the foregoing, the court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to impose sanctions against the Straus-man defendants for failure to comply with said discovery demands.

Section 3126 leaves the nature and degree of a discovery penalty generally to the trial court’s discretion, including whether to conditionally strike an answer for failure to produce a witness for deposition.

Desiderio v. GEICO General Insurance Co. · filed 2017-09-20

The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter generally left to the discretion of the trial court ... Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in conditionally striking the defendant’s answer unless it produced the named witness for deposition by a certain date.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to sanction a party for failing to comply with discovery orders by making an affirmative defense unavailable.

Illinois National Insurance Co. v. Schumann · filed 2017-11-09

In any event, and as a separate rationale for the result, the motion court providently exercised its discretion in sanctioning defendants for noncompliance with the court’s discovery orders (CPLR 3126) so that accord and satisfaction was unavailable to defendants as an affirmative defense.

Section 3126 permits sanctions such as striking a pleading or precluding evidence for willful failure to disclose.

J.N.K. MacHine Corp. v. TBW, Ltd. · filed 2017-11-17

Contrary to defendants’ further contentions, the court properly denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint inasmuch as defendants did not file a motion to compel discovery pursuant to CPLR 3124 (see Double Fortune Prop. Invs. Corp. v Gordon, 55 AD3d 406, 407 [1st Dept 2008]), did not file an affirmation pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7 (a), and did not establish that any failure to disclose was a willful failure that would justify striking a pleading or precluding plaintiff from offering evidence in opposition to defendants’ defenses and counterclaim (cf. Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]; Hill v Oberoi, 13 AD3d 1095, 1096 [4th Dept 2004]).

Section 3126 gives trial courts discretion to impose discovery sanctions, and an appellate court will disturb that decision only for a clear abuse of discretion.

Green Tree Servicing LLC v. Bormann · filed 2018-01-11

Absent a clear abuse of discretion, the determination to impose or not to impose a sanction pursuant to CPLR 3126 will not be disturbed on appeal ( see Seale v Seale , 149 AD3d 1164, 1165 [2017]; Kim v A. Johnson Plumbing & Heating, Inc. , 148 AD3d at 1313; Mokay v Mokay , 111 AD3d 1175, 1177 [2013]). We discern no such abuse of discretion here.

Section 3126 permits discretionary sanctions for discovery violations, but precluding all evidence requires a clear showing of willful and contumacious noncompliance.

Crupi v. Rashid · filed 2018-01-24

The nature and degree of a penalty to be imposed under CPLR 3126 for discovery violations is addressed to the court's discretion ( see Dimoulas v Roca , 120 AD3d 1293, 1295; Zakhidov v Boulevard Tenants Corp ., 96 AD3d 737, 739). ... Before a court invokes the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, or even of precluding all evidence, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious ( see Zakhidov v Boulevard Tenants Corp ., 96 AD3d at 739; Cianciolo v Trism Specialized Carriers , 274 AD2d 369, 370).

Section 3126 permits striking a pleading or precluding evidence for discovery noncompliance only when the failure to comply is clearly willful and contumacious.

Irving v. Four Seasons Nursing & Rehabilitation Center · filed 2017-05-17

“However, the drastic remedy of striking a pleading or even precluding evidence pursuant to CPLR 3126 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 AD3d 611, 612 [2015]; see Henry v Datson, 140 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2016]; New York Timber, LLC v Seneca Cos., 133 AD3d 576 [2015]).

Section 3126(3) permits striking a pleading when repeated discovery delays, inadequate excuses, and inadequate responses show willful and contumacious noncompliance.

Studer v. Newpointe Estates Condominium · filed 2017-07-05(3)

Contrary to the Newpointe defendants’ contention, the willful and contumacious nature of their conduct may properly be inferred from their repeated delays in complying with the plaintiff’s discovery demands and the Supreme Court’s discovery schedule, their failure to provide an adequate excuse for their delays, and their inadequate discovery responses, which did not evince a good-faith effort to address the requests meaningfully (see CPLR 3126 [3]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]; Brandenburg v County of Rockland Sewer Dist. #1, State of N.Y., 127 AD3d 680, 681 [2015]; Espinal v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 115 AD3d 641, 641 [2014]; Jones v LeFrance Leasing L.P., 110 AD3d 1032, 1033 [2013]).

Section 3126(3) permits a discovery sanction for failure to obey a prior disclosure order, but a sanction for failure to meet a new discovery demand requires a clear showing of willful and contumacious noncompliance.

Ural v. Encompass Ins. Co. of Am. · filed 2018-02-28(3)

Further, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for relief pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) based upon Encompass's failure to comply with the prior order of this Court directing it to produce a detailed privilege log for in camera inspection ( see Morales v Zherka , 140 AD3d 836; Padovano v Teddy's Realty Assoc., Ltd. , 31 AD3d 514, 515). ... The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for relief pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) for failure to comply with [*3]the balance of the plaintiff's third notice for discovery and inspection, as there has been no clear showing that Encompass's lack of compliance with the third notice for discovery and inspection was willful and contumacious ( see Dimoulas v Roca , 120 AD3d 1293; Barnes v City of New York , 43 AD3d 1094; Patel v DeLeon , 43 AD3d 432, 432-433).

Section 3126 permits discovery sanctions for conduct such as a pattern of delay or failure to comply with discovery orders; credibility issues alone do not warrant them.

Resurgence Asset Mgt., LLC v. Gidumal · filed 2018-04-26

We agree with the motion court that, rather than demonstrating that plaintiff Resurgence Asset Management engaged in sanctionable conduct, such as a pattern of delay or failure to comply with discovery orders, defendant has raised credibility issues, the determination of which is for a factfinder.

CPLR 3126 permits discovery sanctions, but striking a pleading or precluding evidence requires a clear showing of willful and contumacious noncompliance.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Oscar · filed 2018-05-23

Furthermore, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. " The Supreme Court has broad discretion in supervising disclosure and in resolving discovery disputes'" ( Household Fin. Realty Corp. of N.Y. v Cioppa , 153 AD3d 908, 910, quoting Clarke v Clarke , 113 AD3d 646, 646). "A court may strike a party's pleading or impose some other sanction if the party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed'" ( Household Fin. Realty Corp. of N.Y. v Cioppa , 153 AD3d at 910, quoting CPLR 3126). "However, [b]efore a court invokes the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, or even of precluding evidence, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious'" ( Household Fin. Realty Corp. of N.Y. v Cioppa , 153 AD3d at 910, quoting Zakhidov v Boulevard Tenants Corp ., 96 AD3d 737, 739). The defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's response to the defendant's request to admit was inadequate and failed to otherwise demonstrate that the plaintiff willfully failed to comply with the discovery demand ( see PNC Bank, N.A. v Campbell , 142 AD3d 1148, 1149).

Section 3126(3) allows a court to decline to strike an answer for delayed discovery while imposing monetary sanctions.

Vizcaino v. Western Beef, Inc. · filed 2018-05-24(3)

We see no reason to disturb the motion court's exercise of discretion in declining to strike defendants' answer ( see CPLR 3126[3]). Defendants ultimately provided current contact information for the cashier who assisted plaintiff after her accident at their store, and explained their delay in providing this information as the result of a series of purported good faith mistakes. However, in view of the length of time it took and multiple discovery motions and court orders for defendants finally to provide complete and accurate information, we find that monetary sanctions are warranted.

Section 3126 gives courts discretion to impose discovery sanctions proportionate to the violation; striking an answer may be excessive when the party is also precluded from offering evidence at trial.

Chowdhury v. Hudson Val. Limousine Serv., LLC · filed 2018-06-20

However, under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to grant those branches of the motion and cross motion which were to strike Koonin's answer in light of the fact that the court also granted those branches of the motion and cross motion which were to preclude Koonin from offering any evidence at the time of trial ( see e.g. Hasan v 18-24 Luquer St. Realty, LLC , 144 AD3d 631, 633; Piatek v Oak Dr. Enters., Inc ., 129 AD3d 811, 812).

Section 3126 permits a court to award costs and counsel fees as a sanction for failure to cooperate with discovery, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Estate of Savage v. Kredentser · filed 2018-12-27

Turning to the merits of plaintiffs' argument, a trial court is authorized by CPLR 3126 to fashion an appropriate remedy for a party's failure to cooperate with discovery, and the sanction imposed [*2] is not disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion ( see Green Tree Servicing LLC v Bormann , 157 AD3d 1112 , 1113-1114 [2018]; Matter of Scaccia , 66 AD3d 1247 , 1250 [2009]). "Although not specifically listed, a monetary sanction, including costs and counsel fees, may be imposed under the statutory language permitting any order that the court finds 'just'" ( Matter of John H. , 60 AD3d 1168 , 1169 [2009], citing Patrick M. Connors, 2013 Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3126 at 474-476).

CPLR 3126 leaves the nature and severity of discovery sanctions to the motion court's sound discretion.

Williams v. Suttle · filed 2019-01-09

Resolution of discovery disputes and the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 are matters within the sound discretion of the motion court ( see Corex-SPA v Janel Group of N.Y., Inc. , 156 AD3d 599, 601; Morales v Zherka , 140 AD3d 836, 836-837; Isaacs v Isaacs , 71 AD3d 951, 952).

A party seeking preclusion under § 3126 bears the burden of proving noncompliance with a discovery order.

Cannon v. 111 Fulton St. Condominium, Inc. · filed 2018-06-20

However, the burden of establishing noncompliance rests with the party seeking preclusion ( see Goodman, Rackower & Agiato v Lieberman , 260 AD2d 599, 600; see also Deer Park Assoc. v Town of Babylon , 121 AD3d 738, 740). ... Therefore, since the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff knew when and where to appear for her deposition, there was no evidence of ongoing willful or contumacious conduct ( see PNC Bank, N.A. v Campbell , 142 AD3d 1148, 1149).

Under CPLR 3126, a court may infer willful and contumacious conduct from a party's repeated failure to comply with discovery demands or orders.

Sepulveda v. 101 Woodruff Ave. Owner, LLC · filed 2018-11-14

A court can infer that a party is acting willfully and contumaciously through the party's repeated failure to respond to demands or to comply with discovery orders ( see Silberstein v Maimonides Med. Ctr. , 109 AD3d at 814; Byam v City of New York , 68 AD3d 798, 801).

Severe sanctions under CPLR 3126 require a record supporting willful noncompliance and must be proportionate to the discovery violation.

Han v. New York City Tr. Auth. · filed 2019-02-07

Despite defendant's alleged noncompliance with several discovery stipulations and court orders relating to the taking of the train operator's deposition, the record considered as a whole does not support a finding of willfulness on the part of the defendant so as to justify the severe sanctions imposed. Therefore, the motion court's order was an abuse of discretion.

CPLR 3126 discovery sanctions require a clear showing of willful or contumacious disobedience of discovery orders or bad faith.

Rojas v. Hazzard · filed 2019-04-03

Turning to the branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for the imposition of sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126, the record contains no clear showing that the defendant willfully or contumaciously disobeyed any of the Supreme Court's discovery orders or acted in bad faith.

Section 3126 leaves discovery sanctions to the motion court’s discretion and permits preclusion of testimony when a party willfully fails to comply with a discovery order.

Morson v. 5899 Realty, LLC · filed 2019-04-10

Nevertheless, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the defendants' motion to vacate so much of the order dated March 29, 2017, as precluded the defendants from offering testimony at trial regarding any defense concerning actual or constructive notice. " Resolution of discovery disputes and the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 are matters within the sound discretion of the motion court'" ( Corex-SPA [*2]v Janel Group of N.Y., Inc. , 156 AD3d 599, 601, quoting Morales v Zherka , 140 AD3d 836, 836).

CPLR 3126 permits discovery sanctions when the record warrants them; striking a pleading is inappropriate absent a showing of willful or contumacious conduct.

Ye Wu v. Li · filed 2019-06-19

Contrary to the defendant's contention, she failed to demonstrate willful or contumacious conduct on the part of the plaintiff ( see Walter B. Melvin, Architects, LLC v 24 Aqueduct Lane Condominium , 51 AD3d 784; Zouev v City of New York , 32 AD3d 850; Euro-Central Corp. v Dalsimer, Inc. , 22 AD3d 793; Cestaro v Chin , 20 AD3d 500). Under the circumstances, the "drastic remedy" of striking a pleading is not appropriate in this matter ( Kanic Realty Assoc., Inc. v Suffolk County Water Auth. , 130 AD3d 876, 877 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Moreover, no other remedy is warranted pursuant to CPLR 3126 based upon this record.

CPLR 3126 gives the motion court discretion to impose monetary sanctions for failure to comply fully and timely with discovery.

Eyeking, LLC v. Singer · filed 2019-07-03

"Resolution of discovery disputes and the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 are matters within the sound discretion of the motion court" ( Morales v Zherka , 140 AD3d 836, 836-837). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imposing a monetary sanction to compensate the defendant's counsel for the time expended and costs incurred in connection with the plaintiff's failure to fully and timely comply with discovery ( see Knoch v City of New York , 109 AD3d 459; L & L Auto Distribs. & Suppliers Inc. v Auto Collection, Inc ., 85 AD3d 734).

Section 3126 permits preclusion and a default judgment when a party repeatedly fails, without an adequate excuse, to comply with discovery demands and orders.

JNG Constr., Ltd. v. Roussopoulos · filed 2019-03-27(2), (3)

Here, the willful and contumacious character of the defendant's conduct can be inferred from his repeated failures over an extended period of time, without an adequate excuse, to comply with the plaintiff's discovery demands, the Supreme Court's discovery orders, and the parties' discovery stipulation ( see Hasan v 18-24 Luquer St. Realty, LLC , 144 AD3d 631, 632; Aha Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc. , 110 AD3d at 1020; Carabello v Luna , 49 AD3d 679, 680; Moog v City of New York , 30 AD3d 490, 491). Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting those branches of the plaintiff's motion and cross motion which were to preclude the defendant from introducing evidence in his defense at trial and for leave to enter a default judgment ( see Carabello v Luna , 49 AD3d 679).

CPLR 3126 permits discovery sanctions when repeated failure to comply with court orders supports an inference of willful noncompliance.

Almonte v. KSI Trading Corp. · filed 2019-05-30

Accordingly, the court properly granted defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126, since plaintiff's continued pattern of noncompliance with court orders warranted an [*2]inference of willful noncompliance ( see Perez v City of New York , 95 AD3d 675, 677 [1st Dept 2012]; Bryant v New York City Hous. Auth. , 69 AD3d 488, 489 [1st Dept 2010]).

Section 3126 permits preclusion of evidence or striking a pleading for discovery noncompliance, but those remedies require a clear showing of willful and contumacious conduct.

Kiernan v. Booth Mem. Med. Ctr. · filed 2019-09-18

However, the drastic remedy of striking a pleading or even precluding evidence pursuant to CPLR 3126 should not be imposed absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders was willful and contumacious ( see MacKenzie v City of New York , 125 AD3d 821, 822; Palmieri v Piano Exch., Inc. , 124 AD3d at 612; Gutman v Cabrera , 121 AD3d 1042, 1043).

CPLR 3126 permits striking a pleading or resolving issues against a party for refusing ordered disclosure or willfully withholding required information, but either sanction requires a clear showing of willful and contumacious noncompliance.

Lopez v. Bell Sports, Inc. · filed 2019-09-25

A court may strike a party's pleading or deem the issues to which the information is relevant to be resolved for purposes of the action in accordance with the movant's claims if the party "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed" (CPLR 3126; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Oscar , 161 AD3d at 1057; Household Fin. Realty Corp. of N.Y. v Cioppa , 153 AD3d at 910). However, before a court invokes the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, or even of deeming certain issues resolved in accordance with the movant's claims, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery was willful and contumacious ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Oscar , 161 AD3d at 1057; Household Fin. Realty Corp. of N.Y. v Cioppa , 153 AD3d at 910; Zakhidov v Boulevard Tenants Corp. , 96 AD3d at 739).

Section 3126 permits a court to preclude testimony for failure to obey a disclosure order, but striking a pleading requires a clear showing of willful and contumacious noncompliance.

Tarboush v. Delgado · filed 2019-10-04(2), (3)

A court may invoke the drastic remedy of striking a pleading upon a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious ( see Brodsky v Amber Ct. Assisted Living, LLC , 147 AD3d 810 [2017]; Facey v Silver Express Cab Corp. , 87 AD3d 1053 [2011]; Argo v Queens Surface Corp. , 58 AD3d 656 [2009]). Here, the record does not support a finding that Delgado willfully and contumaciously failed to appear for a deposition. Under the circumstances presented, including that the adverse impact of the striking of Delgado's answer would fall most heavily on Lai, which is not in default of any discovery order and which would be vicariously liable for Delgado's negligence, the appropriate remedy is an order precluding Delgado from offering testimony at trial should he not appear for an examination before trial within 45 days from the date of this decision and order ( see Brodsky v Amber Ct. Assisted Living, LLC , 147 AD3d 810; Facey v Silver Express Cab Corp. , 87 AD3d 1053; Magee v City of New York , 242 AD2d 239 [1997]).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to sanction a person for failing to answer questions during a deposition, subject to the court's discretion.

Porges v. Weitz · filed 2019-11-13

The sanction imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 was a provident exercise of the Supreme Court's discretion ( see Polidori v Societe Generale Group , 57 AD3d 369, 369; Sutton v Cobb , 50 AD2d 995).

Section 3126 permits a court to preclude evidence when a party repeatedly fails to comply with discovery demands and the court finds the conduct willful and contumacious.

Vays v. Luntz · filed 2020-01-08

Here, the willful and contumacious character of the plaintiffs' conduct can be inferred from their repeated failure to respond to the defendant's demands for discovery, and the absence of any adequate explanation for their failure to timely comply with these demands or the deadlines set forth in the preliminary conference order ( see Pastore v Utilimaster Corp. , 165 AD3d 685, 687; Westervelt v Westervelt , 163 AD3d 1036, 1037-1038; Corex-SPA v Janel Group of N.Y., Inc. , 156 AD3d at 601). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the amended complaint to the extent of precluding the plaintiffs from offering certain evidence.

CPLR 3126 requires discovery sanctions to be proportionate to the failure to disclose; severe preclusion is unwarranted when the record does not show willfulness or bad faith.

Beach v. Touradji Capital Mgt., LP · filed 2020-01-14

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, if a 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 make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just." ... Moreover, the court's drastic sanctions were disproportionate to the alleged discovery malfeasance.

CPLR 3126 permits monetary sanctions equal to reasonable discovery-related legal fees for continued discovery abuses.

Maxim Inc. v. Gross · filed 2020-01-21

This Court previously imposed discovery sanctions on plaintiffs in the amount of a $10,000 monetary sanction pursuant to CPLR 3126 ( see Maxim, Inc. v Feifer , 161 AD3d 551 [1st Dept 2018]). Plaintiffs' continued discovery abuses, including their refusal to produce proper witnesses for depositions, withholding of responsive documents, and refusal to properly answer interrogatories, and their general obstructionist behavior and cavalier attitude with respect to discovery obligations and deadlines warrant the further exercise of this Court's discretion to impose monetary sanctions on them in the amount of defendant's reasonable legal fees incurred in discovery ( see Figdor v City of New York , 33 AD3d 560, 561 [1st Dept 2006]).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to defer a discovery sanctions motion to the trial judge to determine whether the requesting party suffered prejudice.

Kuti v. Sera Sec. Servs. · filed 2020-04-02

Finally, we find that the motion court, in the exercise of its broad discretion in such matters (CPLR 3126; Ortega v City of New York , 9 NY3d 69, 76 [2007]), properly deferred plaintiff's cross motion for discovery sanctions to the trial judge to determine whether plaintiff had suffered any prejudice ( see Linarello v City Univ. of N.Y. , 6 AD3d 192, 194 [1st Dept 2004]).

Section 3126 leaves discovery sanctions to the motion court’s discretion; dissatisfaction with interrogatory answers alone does not establish willful noncompliance.

Roel v. Hsu · filed 2020-07-29

Resolution of discovery disputes and the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 are matters within the sound discretion of the motion court ( see Williams v Suttle , 168 AD3d 792, 793; Morales v Zherka , 140 AD3d 836, 836-837; Isaacs v Isaacs , 71 AD3d 951, 952). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' motion without prejudice. ... The defendants' dissatisfaction with the answers and objections proffered by the plaintiff was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff willfully and contumaciously failed to comply with court-ordered disclosure ( see Automatic Mail Serv. v Xerox Corp. , 156 AD2d 623, 624; E.K. Constr. Co. v Town of N. Hempstead , 144 AD2d 427; Miller v Duffy , 126 AD2d 527, 528).

CPLR 3126 sanctions require the moving party to show that the responsible party acted willfully and contumaciously.

Adam v. New York City Tr. Auth. · filed 2019-11-20

"To support a determination of sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126, the moving party must demonstrate that the responsible party's actions were willful and contumacious" ( UMS Solutions, Inc. v Biosound Esaote, Inc. , 145 AD3d 831, 832 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Falcone v Karagiannis , 93 AD3d 632, 633).

CPLR 3126 does not warrant discovery sanctions for a defendant’s invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination when the refusal to answer has not been shown to be willful or contumacious.

Pinnock v. Mercy Med. Ctr. · filed 2020-02-26

Here, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, Ahmed's refusal to answer most questions during the May 16, 2016, deposition, which refusal was occasioned by his exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination, was not demonstrated to be willful or contumacious so as to warrant the sanctions sought ( see Zubaidi v Hasbani , 136 AD3d 708, 708; Poveromo v Kelley-Amerit Fleet Servs., Inc. , 127 AD3d at 1048).

Section 3126 gives a trial court broad discretion to choose an appropriate discovery sanction, even one the moving party did not expressly request.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Sirota · filed 2020-12-02

CPLR 3126 gives a trial court broad discretion to fashion an appropriate discovery sanction, even when the particular sanction has not been expressly requested by the moving party ( see Turiano v Schwaber , 180 AD3d at 952; see also Wolfson v Nassau County Med. Ctr. , 141 AD2d 815, 816).

Section 3126 permits a monetary discovery sanction even when the record does not justify striking a pleading or precluding evidence; those drastic remedies require a clear showing of willful and contumacious noncompliance.

Gelin v. New York City Tr. Auth. · filed 2020-12-02

Therefore, the drastic remedies of striking a pleading or precluding evidence are not appropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands was willful and contumacious ( see CPLR 3126[3]; Gafarova v Yale Realty, LLC , 174 AD3d 862, 863; Strong v Delemos , 172 AD3d 940, 942). In this case, the record does not establish a clear pattern of willfulness and contumacious conduct necessary to justify the sanctions of striking the complaint or precluding the plaintiff from offering evidence of damages. Nevertheless, under the circumstances of this case, in particular the plaintiff's misrepresentations in her deposition testimony regarding the date and severity of her prior accident, we find as a matter of discretion that a monetary sanction in the sum of $3,000, payable by the plaintiff personally to the defendant, constitutes an appropriate sanction ( see CPLR 3126; L & L Auto Distribs. & Suppliers Inc. v Auto Collection, Inc. , 85 AD3d 734; Dean v Usine Campagna , 44 AD3d 603, 605).

CPLR 3126 permits preclusion and an adverse inference instruction when a party fails to comply with a conditional discovery order without a reasonable excuse.

Lieberman v. Green · filed 2021-01-13

Here, the defendant, who did not submit an affidavit in opposition to the plaintiffs' affirmation alleging his noncompliance with the conditional order, failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to comply with the conditional order so as to avoid the adverse impact of such order, and further failed to establish that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in directing preclusion and an adverse inference instruction as a result of such noncompliance.

Section 3126 permits discovery sanctions, but striking a pleading or precluding evidence requires willful and contumacious conduct.

Abdourahamane v. Public Stor. Institutional Fund III · filed 2021-01-13

The drastic remedy of striking a pleading or the alternative remedy of precluding evidence requires a showing that the party's conduct is willful and contumacious ( see Rector v City of New York , 174 AD3d 660, 661). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the delay in scheduling depositions was due to any willful or contumacious conduct on the part of the defendant ( see Nunez v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr. Ctr.-Schneider Children's Hosp. , 82 AD3d 724, 725), nor did the plaintiff demonstrate that the defendant had willfully or contumaciously failed to comply with discovery demands or court orders. Under the circumstances neither the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, nor any other remedy pursuant to CPLR 3126 was warranted.

Section 3126 permits a court to preclude a further deposition when a party willfully disregards a court-ordered deposition deadline.

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. v. Geller Law Group, P.C. · filed 2021-02-17

The plaintiff's attorney made no attempt to seek an extension of the deadline from the court. Nevertheless, the plaintiff's attorney opted not to appear to continue the deposition of Geller, wilfully disregarding the deadline. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in precluding any further deposition of Geller ( see Schneider v Schneider , 16 AD3d 573, 574).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike counterclaims and preclude evidence when repeated, unexplained discovery failures show willful and contumacious conduct.

Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Jackson · filed 2021-03-10

Here, the willful and contumacious character of the defendant's actions can be inferred from its repeated failure to comply with discovery demands for more than a year, its failure to comply with the deadlines set forth in a compliance conference order, and the absence of any excuse offered for such failures ( see Sparakis v Gozzer Corp. , 177 AD3d 1011, 1012-1013; Gafarova v Yale Realty, LLC , 174 AD3d at 863; Williams v Suttle , 168 AD3d at 793-794). The Supreme Court's penalties of striking the defendant's counterclaims and precluding the defendant from offering any evidence that should have been provided in response to the plaintiff's discovery requests were proper ( see Gafarova v Yale Realty, LLC , 174 AD3d at 863; Williams v Suttle , 168 AD3d at 793-794).

CPLR 3126 entrusts remedies for nondisclosure to the trial court’s discretion, including whether to strike an answer.

Emigrant Bank v. Rosabianca · filed 2021-03-25

The motion court, which was in the best position to understand the import of its own orders, and which determined that SLC was not in violation of the January 2019 order, providently exercised its discretion in declining to strike SLC's answer and instead directing SLC to provide, within 10 days, a more particularized response to the demands, namely, setting forth any responsive documents to such demands, identifying which category the response was responsive to, and, if no such document existed, describing in detail the date, time, and location of the search and the manner in which the search was conducted, and identifying each person who conducted such search ( see Gogos v Modell's Sporting Goods, Inc. , 87 AD3d 248, 255 [1st Dept 2011] ["It is not the function of this Court to micromanage discovery proceedings in the trial parts, particularly where, as here, the remedy for nondisclosure is entrusted to the discretion of the motion court (CPLR 3126), and the order issued was well within the province of the court's discretion"]).

CPLR 3126 permits discovery sanctions when a party willfully refuses to comply with court orders directing discovery.

Yes Contr. Inc. v. CLST Enters. LLC · filed 2021-04-15

The record amply supports the court's finding that defendants willfully refused to comply with numerous court orders directing discovery, and in particular refused to produce Margaret Mary Thomson for a deposition, warranting discovery sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 ( see Brown v Astoria Fed. Sav. , 51 AD3d 961, 962 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008]; Jones v Green , 34 AD3d 260 [1st Dept 2006]).

Section 3126 allows sanctions for discovery failures, but striking an answer or precluding evidence requires a showing that the failures were willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.

Nugent v. City of New York · filed 2020-12-22

However, plaintiff failed to demonstrate conclusively that the City's discovery failures were willful, contumacious or due to bad faith ( see Henderson-Jones v City of New York , 87 AD3d 498, 504 [1st Dept 2011]).

CPLR 3126 leaves discovery sanctions to the court’s discretion; striking a pleading requires a clear showing of willful, contumacious, or bad-faith noncompliance.

Squires v. Say · filed 2021-11-19

We agree with Supreme Court that plaintiff's conduct during discovery did not rise to the level of willful or bad faith behavior so as to warrant the sanctions sought. We therefore conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 ( see Windnagle , 184 AD3d at 1179-1180; Pinnock v Mercy Med. Ctr. , 180 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2d Dept 2020]; cf. Campbell v Obear , 26 AD3d 877, 877 [4th Dept 2006]).

A court may deny Section 3126 discovery sanctions when there is no evidence of spoliation or failure to respond to discovery demands or comply with disclosure orders.

McDonnell v. Blockbuster Video, Inc. · filed 2022-03-02

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 for discovery sanctions, as there was no evidence of spoliation nor a showing that Elmnic failed to respond to demands for discovery or to comply with court orders for disclosure ( see id. ; Ambroise v Palmana Realty Corp. , 197 AD3d 1226, 1228; Garcia v Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. , 196 AD3d 676, 679-680; McDonnell v Sandaro Realty, Inc. , 165 AD3d 1090, 1095).

CPLR 3126 allows a court to impose a penalty on trial counsel personally and condition reinstatement of a complaint on its payment when dismissal would be too severe a discovery sanction.

Cook v. SI Care Ctr. · filed 2022-05-18

Under these circumstances, we are of the view that reinstatement of the complaint [*3]conditioned upon the payment of a penalty by the plaintiffs' trial counsel personally to both defendants would be more appropriate than the outright denial of the plaintiff's right to a day in court ( see Bermudez v Laminates Unlimited , 134 AD2d 314).

CPLR 3126 permits striking a pleading or precluding evidence for discovery noncompliance only upon a clear showing that the noncompliance was willful and contumacious.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Hadar · filed 2022-06-01

"However, the drastic remedy of striking a pleading or even precluding evidence pursuant to CPLR 3126 should not be imposed absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders was willful and contumacious" ( Kiernan v Booth Mem. Med. Ctr. , 175 AD3d at 1399-1400; see MacKenzie v City of New York , 125 AD3d 821, 822). Here, the record contains no evidence that the plaintiff failed to comply with any court order directing disclosure.

Section 3126 does not warrant striking a pleading or precluding evidence for a single discovery order violation that does not show willful or contumacious conduct.

Johnson v. Ortiz Transp., LLC · filed 2022-05-04

Furthermore, while the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendants violated the compliance order dated June 26, 2018, which directed that the defendants be deposed on July 9, and July 16, 2018, "this single incident of noncompliance" did not "constitute a pattern of noncompliance or an indication of willful or contumacious conduct on [the defendants'] part" ( Fraracci v Lasouska , 283 AD2d 735, 736; cf. Bellevue v Gustav , 186 AD3d 547, 548; Carbajal v Bobo Robo, Inc. , 38 AD3d 820, 821-822).

CPLR 3126 permits the court to impose sanctions for a pattern of discovery abuses, including failure to comply with discovery orders.

Marbru Assoc. v. White · filed 2022-06-28

In the exercise of our own discretion ( see Maxim, Inc. v Feifer , 161 AD3d 551, 554 [1st Dept 2018]), we find, contrary to the motion court, that defendants' discovery abuses warrant sanctions under CPLR 3126.

When an agreed extension nullifies a conditional discovery order, CPLR 3126 sanctions require a showing of willful, contumacious or bad-faith noncompliance, which may be inferred from a pattern of noncompliance.

Shioya v. Hanah Country Inn Mgt. Corp. · filed 2022-07-14

However, here, the parties agreed — as memorialized in an amended scheduling order — to extend the discovery deadline beyond the date specified in the conditional order, thereby nullifying the conditional order ( see generally Onewest Bank, FSB v McKay , 172 AD3d 887, 888 [2019]). Thus, contrary to the Hanah defendants' contention, there must be a showing that plaintiff's noncompliance was willful, contumacious or in bad faith — a determination that may be inferred from a pattern of noncompliance ( see Sugar Foods De Mexico v Scientific Scents, LLC , 88 AD3d 1194, 1196 [2011]; Doherty v Schuyler Hills, Inc. , 55 AD3d at 1176).

Section 3126 addresses failures to disclose; general delay in prosecuting an action does not justify dismissal under it.

Cooper v. Mt. Sinai Hosp. · filed 2022-08-03(3)

The defendant's motion was made pursuant to CPLR 3126, pertaining to failures to disclose, not pursuant to CPLR 3216(a), which relates to neglect to prosecute. ... Thus, the defendant's and the court's reliance upon the plaintiff's delay in prosecuting the action when determining that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 improperly operated to circumvent the 90-day demand requirement of CPLR 3216(b)(3).

Section 3126 gives courts discretion to impose discovery sanctions and to decide their nature and degree.

255 Butler Assoc., LLC v. 255 Butler, LLC · filed 2022-08-31

In light of our determination to strike the defendants' answer and counterclaims in the related appeal from the order dated February 14, 2019 ( see 55 Butler Associates, LLC v 255 Butler, LLC , ___ AD3d ___ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2019-03306]), and our determination affirming the award of summary judgment to the tenant on the first cause of action, for declaratory relief, in the related appeal from the order dated October 9, 2019 ( see 255 Butler Associates, LLC v 255 Butler, LLC , ___ AD3d ___ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2019-12260; decided herewith]), we decline to disturb the Supreme Court's denial of those branches of the tenant's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3126 for judgment in its favor on the second, third, and fourth causes of action and for an award of monetary sanctions.

Section 3126 gives courts discretion to deny discovery sanctions despite repeated failures to comply with discovery demands and to reserve the option to impose sanctions later.

Matter of Spiak · filed 2022-09-15

Although it is clear from the record that petitioners [*6]have, among other things, repeatedly failed to fully and timely comply with discovery demands, we cannot say that Surrogate's Court abused its discretion by denying respondent's request for sanctions while reserving the right to impose same at a later date ( see generally CPLR 3126; Estate of Savage v Kredentser , 167 AD3d 1344, 1345 [3d Dept 2018]; Green Tree Servicing LLC v Bormann , 157 AD3d 1112, 1113-1114 [3d Dept 2018]).

Section 3126 permits precluding a party from testifying at trial or opposing summary judgment when it repeatedly fails to appear for court-ordered depositions without an excuse.

Galarza v. 25 Hope St. Assoc., LLC · filed 2022-10-26

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to the extent of precluding Hope Street from testifying at trial or offering opposition to a motion for summary judgment.

Section 3126 allows sanctions for willful discovery violations, but striking a complaint may be too drastic when narrower sanctions suffice.

Castillo v. Charles · filed 2022-11-02(2), (3)

However, under the circumstances, we find that the striking of the complaint was too drastic a remedy ( see Turiano v Schwaber , 180 AD3d 950, 952; see also Arpino v F.J.F. & Sons Elec. Co., Inc. , 102 AD3d at 211). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint should have been granted only to the extent of (1) precluding the plaintiff from using at trial any photograph that was not produced in response to the defendant's discovery demands, (2) directing the plaintiff to provide the defendant with medical authorizations for Jamaica Hospital, and (3) directing the plaintiff's counsel to personally pay the sum of $3,000 as a sanction to the defendant ( see id. § 3126[2]).

Section 3126 permits sanctions for disobeying a disclosure order, but striking a pleading requires a clear showing that the failure to comply was willful and contumacious.

Gregorian v. New York Life Ins. Co. · filed 2022-12-07(3)

However, we conclude that the imposition of a sanction upon the defendant is appropriate due to the defendant's failure to comply with discovery demands and the order dated January 2, 2015, and the negligent destruction of certain relevant documents. "Pursuant to CPLR 3126, a court may impose discovery sanctions, including the striking of a pleading or preclusion of evidence, where a party 'refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed'" ( Aha Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc. , 110 AD3d 1019, 1019, quoting CPLR 3126). Since public policy strongly favors the resolution of cases on their merits ( see Warner v Orange County Regional Med. Ctr. , 126 AD3d 887, 887), "the drastic remedies of striking a pleading or precluding evidence are not appropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands was willful and contumacious" ( Gelin v New York City Tr. Auth. , 189 AD3d 789, 792-793; see CPLR 3126[3]; Gafarova v Yale Realty, LLC , 174 AD3d 862, 863).

Section 3126(2) permits a court to preclude documents and conditionally instruct the jury to draw a negative inference when a party repeatedly fails to provide complete and timely discovery responses.

Casanas v. Casanas · filed 2023-04-11(2)

With respect to the discovery order, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding plaintiff from serving additional documents that should have been produced in response to defendants' combined demands. The court also providently issued a conditional negative inference jury instruction against plaintiff in the event documents necessary for trial are found to be withheld ( see General Motors Acceptance Corp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 104 AD3d 523, 524 [1st Dept 2013]). The sanction was within the motion court's discretion following plaintiff's failure, for a second time, to serve complete and timely responses after the court afforded her additional time to do so in its April 14, 2022 order (CPLR 3126[2]).

Section 3126 gives courts discretion to preclude evidence when a party fails to comply with a discovery order.

Kwiatkowski v. My Jamie Joseph Only, Inc. · filed 2023-05-03

The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter within the discretion of the court ( see Smookler v Dicerbo , 166 AD3d 838, 839). ... The defendants failed to demonstrate that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in issuing the conditional order and then prohibiting the defendants from offering evidence at trial upon their failure to comply with the order.

CPLR 3126 permits discovery sanctions when repeated failures to comply with discovery demands and orders show willful and contumacious conduct.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Giannikakis · filed 2023-05-03

Here, the willful and contumacious character of the plaintiff's actions can be inferred from its repeated failure to comply with discovery demands for two years and its failure to comply with the deadlines set forth in a preliminary conference order and two so-ordered stipulations ( see id. at 816; U.S. Bank N.A. v Sirota , 189 AD3d 927; cf. U.S. Bank N.A. v Hadar , 206 AD3d 688). Accordingly, the Supreme Court, upon properly determining that some sanction was appropriate, properly, in effect, granted Emanuel's cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to impose discovery sanctions.

Section 3126 leaves discovery sanctions to the court’s discretion; the court may deny fees and costs when the record shows no clear pattern of discovery abuse.

VXI Lux Holdco S.A R.L. v. SIC Holdings, LLC · filed 2023-07-13

The imposition of CPLR 3126 sanctions is within the sound discretion of the court ( see Gross v Edmer Sanitary Supply Co., 201 AD2d 390, 391 [1st Dept 1994]). The court declines to order sanctions in this case. The record before the court displays no clear pattern of discovery abuse by plaintiff. Accordingly, the portion of the motion seeking attorney's fees and costs in association with making this motion is denied.

Section 3126 permits sanctions for willful disclosure failures, but courts should choose the sanction in light of the misconduct, prejudice, and the policy favoring decisions on the merits.

M.F. v. Albany Med. Ctr. · filed 2023-07-20

Having considered the record as a whole, including the supplemental discovery disclosures, the affidavit of merit, the lack of prejudice to defendant and the nature and root of the misconduct, we vacate the August 2022 order that precluded plaintiff from proffering certain evidence and expert witnesses.

Section 3126 permits a court to infer willful and contumacious conduct from a party's repeated failure to comply with discovery demands and disclosure orders.

S.A. v. Bucca · filed 2023-11-01

To vacate her default in opposing those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the amended complaint, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default and a potentially meritorious opposition ( see id. § 5015[a][1]; Valesquez v Landino , 213 AD3d 968, 969; Follors v TI Ozone Park Stor., LLC , 209 AD3d 843). ... Instead, the willful and contumacious nature of the plaintiff's conduct can be inferred from her failure, over a period of years, to comply with the defendants' discovery demands and her failure to comply with court orders directing disclosure ( see id. at 695; Dokaj v Ruxton Tower Ltd. Partnership , 91 AD3d 812, 814).

Section 3126 sanctions of striking an answer or precluding evidence may be denied when there is no prior disclosure order and the failure to comply with discovery demands is not shown to be clearly wilful and contumacious.

Moran v. Grand Slam Ventures, LLC · filed 2023-11-29

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants' answer or, in the alternative, for an order of preclusion, since there was no prior court order requiring disclosure, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants' failure to comply with the discovery demands was "'clearly wilful and contumacious'" ( Rivera v Caban , 214 AD3d 832, 833, quoting Johnson v Ortiz Transp., LLC , 205 AD3d 699, 700).

Section 3126 permits a court to resolve an issue against a party as a discovery sanction when there is a clear showing of willful or contumacious disobedience of a discovery order or bad faith.

Finely v. ZSN, LLC · filed 2023-11-29

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to resolve the issue of whether the defendant owned the premises abutting the portion of the sidewalk at issue in his favor because he failed to make a clear showing that the defendant willfully or contumaciously disobeyed a discovery order or acted in bad faith ( see Rojas v Hazzard , 171 AD3d 819, 820; 1523 Real Estate, Inc. v East Atl. Props., LLC , 41 AD3d 567, 568).

CPLR 3126 permits monetary sanctions, including attorneys' fees and costs, for willful failure to comply with disclosure requirements.

D2D Holdings LLC v. Bridgemarket Assoc., L.P. · filed 2023-12-07

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), ... granted defendants' motion for discovery sanctions in accordance with CPLR 3126 to the extent of awarding defendants attorneys' fees and costs incurred through plaintiffs' noncompliance with disclosure requirements and denied the motion to the extent that it sought a further penalty for noncompliance, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing monetary sanctions on plaintiffs, as defendants sufficiently established the willful nature of plaintiffs' failure to comply with disclosure requirements.

CPLR 3126 does not warrant discovery sanctions, including striking an answer, when the responding parties say the requested material does not exist and the movant offers no evidence that it does.

Simpson v. Success Academy Charter Schs., Inc. · filed 2023-12-21

Further, to the extent that plaintiff seeks sanctions, including striking Extell and 555 Tenth’s answer, based upon their failure to comply with the court’s directive in the previous order that they provide her with all video outtakes for the time period between 3:42 PM on July 22, 2017 and 7:00 AM on July 23, 2017, the court notes that the defendants responded to this demand and stated that no such additional outtakes exist. Additionally, plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that ... such additional evidence does exist.

Section 3126 requires a clear showing of willful and contumacious failure to comply with discovery demands before imposing the discovery sanctions sought here.

Cyngiel v. Krigsman · filed 2024-02-28

Here, the plaintiff failed to make a clear showing of a willful and contumacious failure to comply with discovery demands.

A court may deny a CPLR 3126 request for discovery sanctions when the underlying demands and motion are palpably improper.

East Riv. Hous. Corp. v. Hillman Hous. Corp. · filed 2024-04-02

As the court finds both the demands in the Second Notice and the instant motion to be, in substantial part, palpably improper, the court denies the motion and vacates the Second Notice ( see Editel, NY v Liberty Studios, Inc. , 162 AD2d 345), including plaintiff's application for sanctions.

Section 3126 permits disclosure sanctions for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, with willful, contumacious, or bad-faith conduct supporting their imposition.

Levin v. City of New York · filed 2024-04-10

CPLR §3126 authorizes the imposition of disclosure sanctions, including the striking of a pleading, for a party's failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, especially where there is a clear showing that plaintiff's conduct is willful, contumacious or manifests bad faith (see Irizarry v Ashar Realty Corp., 14 AD3d 323 [1st Dept 2005]; Katz v Dream Trans, Inc., 11 AD3d 412 [1st Dept 2004]; Frye v City of New York, 228 AD2d 182 [1st Dept 1996]). ... Finally, Plaintiffs have made no showing that the City has acted willfully, contumaciously or in bad faith. The record shows that the City has acted in good faith, categorically undermining the imposition of preclusion or sanctions.

Section 3126 permits a conditional order dismissing a complaint if the plaintiff fails to provide court-ordered discovery.

Klein v. New York City Tr. Auth. · filed 2024-05-29

As such, the court finds, pursuant to CPLR 3126, that a conditional order dismissing the complaint is warranted.

Section 3126 does not support a discovery sanction where the record does not show willful failure to comply with discovery orders.

Zhang v. City of New York · filed 2023-12-07

Moreover, contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the record does not show that the City willfully failed to comply with any discovery orders and the motion court never found as such ( see CPLR 3126; see Pezhman v Dept. of Educ. of City of N.Y. , 95 AD3d 625 [1st Dept 2012]).

Section 3126 permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to comply with a conditional discovery order and does not show a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious action.

Mention v. Archbishop Stepinac High Sch. · filed 2024-01-31

Here, the plaintiff failed to comply with the conditional order by providing the required authorizations by May 28, 2021. Further, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to comply with the conditional order ( see Vallajo v Uzzi , 213 AD3d at 796; Cobo v Pennwalt Corp. Stokes Div. , 185 AD3d 650, 653), and he made no effort to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Section 3126 does not warrant preclusion or striking a complaint when the party seeking sanctions fails to show a violation of a conditional discovery order.

White v. Bical Dev., Inc. · filed 2024-07-10

Since the defendants failed to show that the plaintiff violated the conditional order, the drastic remedy of precluding the plaintiff from offering any evidence at trial and striking the complaint was unwarranted ( see Siradze v AVB 1895 Broadway, LLC , 208 AD3d 607).

Section 3126 permits discovery sanctions, but the court may deny a sanctions request while ordering a party to produce documents.

Lin v. Wellcare Acupuncture P.C. · filed 2024-07-11

ORDERED that upon reargument, Defendant Wellcare Acupuncture, P.C.'s motion for attorneys' fees and for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 is denied; and it is further ORDERED that on or before August 13, 2024, the parties in this case shall submit a proposed Status Conference Order via e-mail to [email protected].

Section 3126 allows courts to sanction willful disclosure failures, but delays that do not amount to contumacious conduct did not warrant waiver of objections, striking the answer, or financial sanctions here.

D'Alessandro v. Kushner · filed 2024-07-12

CPLR 3126 authorizes the court to sanction a party who "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed." ... Here, defendants' conduct, though dilatory and uncooperative at times, does not rise to the level of contumacious conduct. ... Under the circumstances, the "drastic penalty" of finding a waiver of objections or striking defendants' answer is unwarranted, in light of the courts' preference for "determining actions on their merits" ( Croce v Abraham & Straus ). For the same reasons, the court does not find sufficient cause for financial sanctions.

A party waives the right to seek CPLR 3126 discovery sanctions by filing a note of issue certifying that discovery is complete without reserving rights or objections.

Aull v. New York City Tr. Auth. · filed 2024-07-22

To the extent that plaintiff seeks a sanction for defendants’ failure to comply with the post-note of issue discovery demand, “plaintiff waived his right to seek discovery sanctions under CPLR 3126 by filing the note of issue and certifying that all discovery was complete without reserving any rights or objections” (Flowers v 73rd Townhouse, LLC, 227 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2024]).

Section 3126 permits sanctions for discovery noncompliance, but a court may decline them when the failure to produce documents does not warrant sanctions.

H.M. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn · filed 2024-08-12

The requesting party may also separately move for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 to address a patten of noncompliance on the part of the recalcitrant party with respect to discovery demands (Figdor v City ofNew York, 33 AD3d 560 [1st Dept 2006]). ... The court finds that the defendant's failure to provide the requested documents however does not rise to the level of requiring sanctions.

CPLR 3126 permits striking a pleading or precluding evidence for discovery noncompliance, but those remedies require a clear showing of willful and contumacious conduct.

Edwards v. Freedom Church of Revelation · filed 2024-08-28

"Actions should be resolved on their merits whenever possible, and the drastic remedy of striking a pleading or the alternative remedy of precluding evidence should not be employed without a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious" ( Cap Rents Supply, LLC v Durante , 167 AD3d 700, 702; see Nunez v Laidlaw , 150 AD3d 1124, 1125). Under the totality of the circumstances, the defendants failed to make a clear showing that the plaintiff's delay in identifying the nonparty witness and providing the affidavit of the nonparty witness was the result of willful and contumacious conduct or otherwise warranted dismissal or preclusion of evidence ( see Ferjuste v 437 BMW, LLC , 219 AD3d 1308, 1310; Nunez v Laidlaw , 150 AD3d at 1125).

Section 3126 sanctions may be denied when a party complies with a discovery order by producing records and providing an affidavit for records it does not possess.

Buff v. Mendelsohn · filed 2024-08-29

Defendants have provided an affidavit stating that they have provided the contracts between Harvey Mendelsohn and Janover LLC on September 15, 2023 and they have provided a Jackson affidavit stating that they are not in possession of any retainer agreements between Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker and Janover LLC and/or Harvey Mendelsohn, CPA. Therefore, defendants have complied with the court order and plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

Section 3126 sanctions may be denied when the movant fails to satisfy the required pre-motion conference rule or establish willful and contumacious nondisclosure.

Vislocky v. New York Presbyt. Hosp. · filed 2024-09-10

To the extent that the cross-moving defendants sought the imposition of sanctions upon the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3126, their requests for that relief must be denied, inasmuch as the attorneys for the several cross-movants failed to establish that they satisfied a condition precedent to the submission of the motion, as set forth in 22 NYCRR 202.20-f(b), which requires that they attest to “having conducted an in-person or telephonic conference, setting forth the date and time of such conference, persons participating, and the length of time of the conference.”

Section 3126 permits sanctions for willful discovery noncompliance, but a court may impose a monetary sanction on counsel when striking the complaint is too drastic.

Mirabile v. Kuwayama · filed 2024-10-09

However, under the circumstances, the sanction imposed was too drastic a remedy and the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint should have been granted only to the extent of directing the plaintiff's counsel to personally pay the sum of $2,500 as a sanction to the defendants ( see Jurlina v Town of Brookhaven , 215 AD3d 936, 938; Bermudez v Laminates Unlimited , 134 AD2d 314).

Section 3126 permits a negative inference or preclusion for failure to comply with compelled discovery, but those sanctions require a showing of willful or repeated noncompliance.

Ambase Corp. v. 111 W. 57th Sponsor LLC · filed 2024-09-11(1)-(2)

When a party fails to comply with discovery previously compelled by the Court, the Court is empowered to grant a series of remedies including, without limitation, a negative inference, preclusion, or attorneys' fees (CPLR 3126(1)-(2); Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC v Lexington Ins. Co., 225 AD3d 574,575 [1st Dept 2024]; Maxim, Inc. v Feifer, 161 AD3d 551, 554 [1st Dept 2018]). ... Next, Plaintiffs' motion for a negative inference or preclusion is denied. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the Sponsor Defendants willfully or repeatedly failed to disclose materials ordered to be produced by this Court's Nov. 16 Order (see, e.g., Peters v Peters, 146 AD3d 503,504 [1st Dept 2017] ["Although plaintiff may not be satisfied with [defendants'] response, it does not evince noncompliance with court orders .... "]).

Section 3126 permits striking a pleading or precluding evidence for discovery noncompliance when there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious.

Wanliss v. Retina Assoc. of N.Y., P.C. · filed 2024-09-18(3)

"A court may strike a party's pleading or impose some other sanction if the party 'refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed'" ( Household Fin. Realty Corp. of N.Y. v Cioppa , 153 AD3d 908, 910, quoting CPLR 3126[3]). However, "[b]efore a court invokes the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, or even of precluding evidence, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the plaintiff failed to show that the delay in scheduling the depositions of Weichsel and Manhattan Eye, and Ear and Throat Hospital was the result of willful and contumacious conduct on [*2]the part of those defendants ( see Belle-Fleur v Desriviere , 178 AD3d 993, 995; Conciatori v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 46 AD3d 501, 504).

Section 3126 does not warrant striking an answer or ordering preclusion without willful noncompliance with discovery orders.

Thomas v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth. · filed 2024-10-03

Nonetheless, the court does not find a “pattern of noncompliance” with prior court orders to establish ConEd’s willfulness to warrant striking its answer or a conditional order of preclusion (Continental Indus. Group, Inc. v Ustuntas, 173 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2019]).

Section 3126 permits courts to impose discovery sanctions, including monetary sanctions, for failure to comply with disclosure obligations.

Matter of Dahan · filed 2024-10-16

"Although not expressly set forth as a sanction under CPLR 3126, we have held that the imposition of a monetary sanction under CPLR 3126 may be appropriate to compensate counsel or a party for the time expended and costs incurred in connection with an offending party's failure to fully and timely comply with court-ordered disclosure" ( Lucas v Stam , 147 AD3d 921, 926; see Matter of Carol Mallon Revocable Trust , 193 AD3d 1049, 1051).

Section 3126 gives the court broad discretion over the nature and severity of sanctions for disobedience of disclosure orders or failures that frustrate disclosure.

M.B. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn · filed 2024-10-29

CPLR § 3126 vests this Court with broad discretion regarding the nature and severity of sanctions to impose upon a party that "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed" or ... "frustrates the disclosure scheme."

Section 3126 authorizes sanctions, including striking a pleading, for refusing to obey a disclosure order or willfully failing to disclose information.

East Dr. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Lawrence · filed 2024-11-15(3)

CPLR § 3126 authorizes the court to sanction a party who "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed." The court may prohibit the disobeying party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, from ... producing evidence, or from using certain witnesses; resolve issues in favor of the moving party; strike pleadings; stay the proceeding until the order is obeyed; or render a judgment by default against the disobedient party (see generally CPLR § 3126). ... CPLR § 3126 is inapplicable to Steven Lawrence's failure to comply with the court's August 16, 2023 order to pay use and occupancy. CPLR § 3126 is a mechanism for seeking discovery sanctions only, and the court's August 16, 2023 order is not a discovery order.

Section 3126 permits discovery sanctions, including self-executing orders, and leaves the nature and degree of the penalty to the court's discretion.

Palacios v. HSRE-EB YORK, LLC · filed 2024-11-29

CPLR §3126 pertains to penalties for refusal to comply with an order to disclose and provides in part: ... In addition, CPLR §3126 authorizes trial courts to "craft self-executing orders that impose discovery sanctions on a party unless that party submits to the disclosure within a specified time." ... The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR §3126 lies within the sound discretion of the Court.

Section 3126 permits sanctions, including striking a pleading, for a party's willful or contumacious failure to comply with discovery demands or orders.

Farrell Limousine Serv. LLC v. Macro Consultants LLC · filed 2024-10-31

Macro did not demonstrate, and the court did not find, that Farrell engaged in a long-standing pattern of willful or contumacious failure to comply with discovery demands or orders (CPLR 3126; see Jones v Green , 34 AD3d 260, 261 [1st Dept 2006]).

CPLR 3126 sanctions for discovery noncompliance depend on whether the conduct was willful, contumacious and in bad faith; prejudice is a factor but is not dispositive.

Beach v. Touradji · filed 2025-01-09

For a sanctions motion under CPLR 3126, “the standard is whether the conduct of the offending party is willful, contumacious and in bad faith.” (Watson v City of New York, 157 AD3d 510, 514 [1st Dept 2018].) Prejudice is a factor, but not dispositive. (Id.) Based on Touradji’s affidavit, and other evidence discussed below, the court finds ... that his failure to comply with this court’s discovery orders was not in bad faith. ... ORDERED that, upon reargument, the January 2, 2023 order is vacated, as to preclusion and adverse inferences for 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7.

Section 3126 authorizes sanctions when a party refuses to meet its discovery obligations.

Zunno v. RXR SL Owner LLC · filed 2025-01-29

Sanctions are authorized pursuant to CPLR 3126 when a party refuses to comply with its obligations to provide discovery in the normal course.

Section 3126 permits a disclosure sanction without a formal discovery order, but striking a complaint requires willful and contumacious conduct.

Ortiz v. Montefiore Med. Ctr. · filed 2025-02-04

Moreover, the court may issue an order pursuant to its statutory authority under CPLR 3126, where it finds that a party ought to have disclosed information, even in the absence of a formal discovery order. However, this case does not present willful and contumacious conduct sufficient to support the ultimate penalty of striking the complaint ( see De Socio v 136 E. 56th St. Owners, Inc. , 74 AD3d 606, 608 [1st Dept 2010]; Corsini v U-Haul Intl. , 212 AD2d 288, 291 [1st Dept 1995], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 87 NY2d 964 [1996]).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to conditionally resolve a factual issue against a party that willfully fails to provide ordered discovery.

Piragua v. New York City Tr. Auth. · filed 2025-02-21

Here, because the documents sought and Cabrera’s deposition appear to bear on the issue of defendants’ notice of the allegedly excessive gap, the court finds it appropriate to issue a conditional order resolving the issue of defendants’ prior notice of the size of the gap in plaintiff’s favor at trial if defendants fail to timely provide responses plaintiff’s “paper discovery.”

Section 3126 permits a court to exclude a document withheld in discovery and draw an adverse inference from missing relevant evidence.

Esterson v. Spring · filed 2025-02-27

The court acted within its discretion in refusing to admit that document into evidence and in drawing an [*2]adverse inference from the absence of the complete and relevant documentary evidence (CPLR 3126; see e.g. Pegasus Aviation I, Inc v Varig Logistica S.A., 26 NY3d 543, 551 [2015]).

Section 3126 permits monetary sanctions for discovery noncompliance, but striking an answer may be too severe when willful, contumacious, or bad-faith conduct is not conclusively shown.

Elizabeth Canal, LLC v. Structure Tone Global Servs., Inc. · filed 2025-03-27

Under the circumstances presented, the penalty of striking the answer is too severe ( see Colucci v Jennifer Convertibles , 283 AD2d 224, 225 [1st Dept 2001]; Hanson , 227 AD2d at 217). Structure Tone's failure to comply with discovery, while certainly sanctionable, was not conclusively shown to be willful, contumacious, or in bad faith ( see Hanson v City of New York , 227 AD2d 217, 217 [1st Dept 1996]).

Section 3126 allows a court to set a final discovery deadline and preclude a party from using documents it fails to produce by then.

Maddicks v. 106-108 Convent BCR, LLC · filed 2025-04-29

Defendants shall be precluded from offering at trial any pre-2012 documents not produced by that date and any post 2012 documents which have not been previously produced.

Section 3126 sanctions may be denied when failures to produce documents are not sufficiently repetitive to constitute willful noncompliance.

Bellino v. Doromet, Inc. · filed 2025-01-27

Moreover, the court determined that defendants' previous failures to produce documents "were not so repetitive" as to constitute willful noncompliance (NYSCEF doc. no. 170). ... For the reasons stated in the court's decision on motion sequence no. 004, plaintiff's request for sanctions and an order compelling production is denied.

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a complaint and require payment of cancellation fees as sanctions for willfully failing to attend independent medical examinations.

Youkelsone v. Pannagl · filed 2025-05-28

Accordingly, the court properly granted the defendant's motion to impose discovery sanctions upon the plaintiff to the extent, in effect, of striking the complaint ( see Sansone v Syracuse Univ. , 202 AD3d at 851-852). The court also properly directed the plaintiff, as a discovery sanction, to pay the defendant's counsel for cancellation fees incurred in relation to the independent medical examinations ( see Jurlina v Town of Brookhaven , 215 AD3d 936, 938; Hilley v Sanabria , 12 AD3d 1188, 1189; Flynn v Debonis , 246 AD2d 852, 853).

The motion court generally decides whether striking an answer is the appropriate penalty under CPLR 3126.

Reyes v. City of New York · filed 2025-06-10

We decline to substitute our discretion for that of the motion court in deciding whether defendants should be compelled to comply with plaintiff's discovery demands pursuant to CPLR 3124 or whether defendants' answer should be struck pursuant to CPLR 3126. "[I]t generally is within the discretion of the motion court to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed against an offending party" ( Spira v Antoine , 191 AD2d 219, 219 [1st Dept 1993]).

Section 3126 permits a discovery sanction when a party or attorney disobeys a discovery order or willfully fails to disclose information that should have been disclosed.

Wheeler v. BrandSafway Indus., LLC · filed 2025-06-27

A sanction cannot be imposed under CPLR 3126 unless a party or attorney "refuses to obey an order for discovery or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed" (emphasis added). Here, there is no evidence that counsel for codefendants willfully failed to disclose the subject video recordings, and the court made no finding of an intentional discovery violation. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the court erred in sanctioning counsel.

A court may deny a CPLR 3126 motion to strike pleadings or preclude evidence when the movant fails to clearly show willful or contumacious discovery noncompliance or bad faith.

Williams v. Staten Is. Univ. Hosp. · filed 2025-08-27

Here, the plaintiff failed to make a clear showing that the defendants willfully or contumaciously disobeyed a discovery order or acted in bad faith ( see Finely v ZSN, LLC , 221 AD3d at 971; Henry v Datson , 140 AD3d at 1122).

Section 3126 sanctions may be denied when the moving party was granted leave only to seek an order compelling discovery.

Fordham Dormitory Tower LLC v. Tress · filed 2025-09-02

Plaintiffs' application seeking discovery sanctions pursuant to CPLR § 3126 is denied. Significantly, here, per this Court's Rule 14 Conference Order, dated October 28, 2024, plaintiffs were only granted leave to make an application pursuant to CPLR § 3214, to compel discovery.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading and impose a monetary sanction for willful, repeated failure to comply with discovery orders.

Matter of Hart · filed 2025-09-17(3)

Here, the appellants' willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from their repeated failure to comply with the Surrogate's Court's discovery orders despite warnings that such failure could result in their amended answer with counterclaims being stricken ( see Lucas v Stam , 147 AD3d at 925). Under the circumstances of this case, the court providently exercised its discretion in striking the appellants' amended answer with counterclaims and imposing a monetary sanction against Jake Hart and Alex Hart ( see generally Matter of Dahan , 231 AD3d at 947-948).

Section 3126 permits sanctions for failure to comply with a disclosure order when the noncompliance is willful, deliberate, and contumacious; striking a pleading was too severe where that showing had not yet been made.

Matter of Reed (Sugg) · filed 2025-09-12

However, Petitioner has not yet conclusively established that such noncompliance was necessarily willful or contumacious (Colucci at 225; Hanson at 217).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to conditionally preclude evidence to compel compliance with outstanding discovery requests.

Khoshayev v. Edelstein · filed 2025-11-19

ORDERED that the order dated March 6, 2024, is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 and 22 NYCRR 202.27 to dismiss the complaint is granted to the extent that the plaintiffs are precluded from offering at trial or using in any dispositive motion any material that is the subject of the authorizations set forth in the order dated February 14, 2023, unless the plaintiffs furnish those authorizations that were not previously provided to the defendant within 60 days of the date of service upon the plaintiffs of a copy of this decision and order, and is otherwise denied.

Section 3126 permits discovery sanctions, but the requested sanctions were unwarranted without an order requiring the disputed disclosure or a clear pattern of willful and contumacious conduct.

Zhou v. Youbi Capital (Cayman) GP · filed 2026-03-02

Movant has not made such a showing here to warrant the sanctions it seeks. First, there was never a Court Order requiring plaintiffs to provide all of the information that Youbi seeks, let alone a clear pattern of plaintiffs repeatedly ignoring Court-ordered discovery. Indeed, as set forth above, the only directive on this subject that the Court made was for plaintiffs to provide data on the two files identified on the Record. Nor has Youbi made a showing of a clear pattern of willful and contumacious conduct.

Section 3126 gives courts discretion to choose a sanction for failure to produce documents; a court may deny a sanctions request without prejudice.

Haruvi v. Hungerford · filed 2026-03-02

The court may exercise its discretion to determine an appropriate sanction for a party’s failure to produce documents pursuant to CPLR 3126 (Husovic v Structure Tone, Inc., 171 AD3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2019]). However, the branch of Ms. Haruvi’s motion seeking to impose sanctions on the Hungerford Defendants is DENIED at this time without prejudice.

Section 3126 permits sanctions for discovery misconduct where a party's conduct is willful or contumacious.

Wright v. City of New York · filed 2026-03-09

Sanctions for discovery misconduct may be imposed under CPLR 3126 where a party's conduct is willful or contumacious.

Section 3126 permits a court to decline discovery sanctions despite incomplete responses when the party seeking sanctions was not diligent in pursuing discovery.

New Empire Bldr. Corp. v. Onboard Hospitality LLC · filed 2026-03-12

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to impose discovery sanctions on defendant ( see generally CDR CrÉances S.A.S. v Cohen , 23 NY3d 307, 317-318 [2014]; Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc. , 11 NY3d 843, 845 [2008]). The record discloses that, at times, defendant was slow to respond to plaintiff's discovery demands, and, when it did respond, provided incomplete responses. However, the record also shows that plaintiff was not diligent in prosecuting this action and completing discovery.

Section 3126 sanctions for inadequate or untimely discovery responses require a record that conclusively shows willful or contumacious noncompliance.

Leslie Digital Imaging LLC v. Empower Info. Sys., Inc. · filed 2025-10-30

Further, even if defendants' discovery responses were inadequate or untimely, the record does not "conclusively show[] that these failures were willful or contumacious" ( Marvin E. Goldberg, P.C. v Law Offs. of Raymond Schwartzberg & Assoc., PLLC , 216 AD3d 547, 547 [1st Dept 2023]; see CPLR 3126).

CPLR 3126 requires a clear showing of willful or contumacious discovery noncompliance before imposing a drastic sanction.

Dongwu v. New York City Regional Ctr. LLC · filed 2026-02-03

Despite the failure to obey the court's April 20, 2023 order, there is no evidence or clear showing by defendants that the non-compliant plaintiffs' conduct was repeated, willful, or contumacious within the meaning of CPLR 3126.

CPLR 3126 sanctions are unwarranted when a party produces insurance policies it believes satisfy a discovery demand and court order, without willful or contumacious noncompliance.

Hanover v. Speaker · filed 2026-03-16

Since the optometrist defendants produced full, unredacted copies of insurance policies that they believed were fully responsive both to the plaintiff’s demand and this court’s September 24, 2025 order, and those policies may, in fact, turn out to be fully responsive thereto, the court concludes that they have not engaged in willful or contumacious behavior that warrants the imposition of any sanction.

Section 3126(2) requires willful, deliberate, and contumacious noncompliance before a court imposes preclusion as a discovery sanction.

Europa Realty LLC v. Inserra · filed 2026-03-18(2)

However, "the court must determine that the party's failure to comply with a disclosure order was willful, deliberate and contumacious" before invoking the drastic remedy of preclusion pursuant to CPLR § 3126 (2) (Holliday v Jones, 36 AD3d 557, 558 [1st Dept 2007], citing Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524 [2d Dept 1994]). ... However, defendant has not demonstrated a pattern of plaintiff's willful non-compliance with discovery -- particularly in the absence of any prior court order directing plaintiff to respond by a certain date. Therefore, the Court declines to strike the complaint in the event plaintiff fails to meet this court-ordered deadline.

Section 3126 requires discovery sanctions to match the party’s culpability; dismissal is unwarranted when a lesser sanction adequately addresses the misconduct.

Connors v. ASM Global Parent, Inc. · filed 2026-06-25

"A sanction pursuant to CPLR 3126 must be commensurate with the degree of culpability attributable to the culpable party" ( Payne v Sole Di Mare, Inc. , 216 AD3d 1339, 1340 [3d Dept 2023]). ... However, we do find that plaintiff's noncompliance with the stipulated order does warrant some consequence and we therefore impose a monetary sanction on plaintiff's trial counsel in the amount of $2,500, in lieu of dismissal and Supreme Court's corresponding award of reasonable costs and counsel fees, as a sanction that adequately reflects that degree of plaintiff's contumacious conduct ( see M.F. v Albany Med. Ctr. , 217 AD3d at 108; Vasquez v State of New York , 12 AD3d 917, 920 [3d Dept 2004]).

Section 3126 requires a clear showing of willful and contumacious failure to comply with court-ordered discovery before a court precludes evidence.

Bianco v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. · filed 2026-04-08

Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to impose sanctions on the defendant should have been denied.

Section 3126 permits striking a pleading or precluding evidence for failure to comply with discovery when there is a clear showing of willful and contumacious conduct.

Kirby v. Philbert · filed 2026-04-22

Here, there was no clear showing that the defendants' failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious.

CPLR 3126 does not support conditioning denial of dismissal on production of documents that are neither material nor necessary to the action.

Neos v. Neos · filed 1995-02-21

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the specific requests in their fourth set of interrogatories to the plaintiffs Louis and Theodore Neos which are the subject of the plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, as well as the documents which the court directed the plaintiffs to produce, are neither material nor necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action. Therefore, the Supreme Court erred when it denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order and ordered the plaintiffs to produce the requested documents as a condition for the denial of the defendants’ cross motion (see, Roberts v Modica, 92 AD2d 563; see also, Alpha Intl. Assocs. v Goldberg, 76 AD2d 873; cf., Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406-407).

Section 3126 gives the trial court discretion to choose a sanction for refusal to comply with discovery, including whether to dismiss the proceeding.

Pyramid Crossgates Co. v. Board of Assessors · filed 2001-10-18

Given the prevailing standard and all of the underlying facts and circumstances, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its broad discretion in declining to dismiss the proceeding based upon PCC and PMG’s failure to comply with 22 NYCRR 202.59.

Section 3126 requires a showing of willfulness to penalize a party for delaying answers to interrogatories.

Preston v. Preston · filed 1989-02-06

Finally, the plaintiff’s contention concerning the application to punish the defendant for contempt is also without merit, since the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant’s delay in serving answers to the interrogatories was willful (see, CPLR 3126; Miller v Duffy, 126 AD2d 527, 528; Delaney v Automated Bread Corp., 110 AD2d 677, 678; Cinelli v Radcliffe, 35 AD2d 829).

Section 3126 permits a conditional order striking an answer if a party fails to provide required discovery by a set date.

Pugliese v. Mondello · filed 2009-11-17

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting a conditional order striking the answer unless the defendant furnished the plaintiff with certain documents by a date certain (see CPLR 3126; Mendez v City of New York, 7 AD3d 766, 767 [2004]; Byrne v City of New York, 301 AD2d 489, 490 [2003]).

Section 3126 calls for just discovery sanctions; a conditional preclusion provision should not rest on a mistaken account that a party violated an existing order.

Bansi v. Flushing Hospital Medical Center · filed 2007-01-19

At the end of the hearing, the court ruled that the conditional preclusion provision set forth on page 2 of the compliance conference order of September 18, 2006 should be rescinded, since Justice Price’s order of September 12, 2006 had not yet expired, and had said order been presented to the court, there would be no basis for the insertion of a conditional preclusion provision. ... Finally, regarding the duties of counsel, if the court is expected to “make such orders ... as are just” (see, CPLR 3126; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]; Brothers v Bunkoff Gen. Contrs., 296 AD2d 764, 765 [2002], supra), it is incumbent on all counsel to accurately inform the court of the history of the case, including the fact that defendants had defaulted in appearing at a preliminary conference, and that plaintiff had not violated any existing order, when defendants had requested of the court to impose a conditional preclusion provision.

A conditional order of preclusion under CPLR 3126 is within the trial court’s discretion and is upheld absent an abuse or improvident exercise of that discretion.

Optic Plus Enterprises, Ltd. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. · filed 2007-02-02

Contrary to plaintiffs contention, we conclude that the court properly granted that part of defendants’ cross motion for a conditional order of preclusion. ... Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court neither abused its discretion nor improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that part of defendants’ cross motion.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to conditionally preclude testimony when a party fails to comply with court-ordered discovery without a reasonable excuse.

Lotardo v. Lotardo · filed 2006-07-11

The plaintiff failed to timely and adequately comply with court-ordered discovery, and failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his failure. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was, inter aha, for a conditional order of preclusion (see CPLR 3126).

Section 3126 permits dismissal under a conditional discovery order when the plaintiff fails to comply with its terms and does not show grounds for relief.

Gavrielatos v. Vienna Hotel · filed 2006-07-11

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in entering judgment upon the conditional order, dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 3042 [d]; 3126).

Section 3126(3) permits dismissal for discovery defaults only when willful, contumacious, or bad-faith conduct is shown.

W.O.R.C. Realty Corp. v. Assessor · filed 2006-09-12(3)

Contrary to the contentions of the appellants, it was not clearly demonstrated that the petitioner’s discovery defaults were willful, contumacious, or done in bad faith as to warrant the extreme sanction of dismissing the petitions pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) (see CPLR 3126 [3]; Soto v New York City Tr. Auth., 25 AD3d 546 [2006]; Byrne v City of New York, 301 AD2d 489, 490 [2003]; Ciándolo v Trism Specialized Carriers, 274 AD2d 369, 370 [2000]; Vancott v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 271 AD2d 438 [2000]; Brown v United Christian Evangelistic Assn., 270 AD2d 378, 379 [2000]; Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663, 664 [1995]).

CPLR 3126 permits dismissal when prolonged noncompliance with court orders and discovery demands supports an inference of willful and contumacious conduct.

Jones v. Green · filed 2006-11-09

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint because of plaintiffs’ long continued pattern of noncompliance with court orders and discovery demands (CPLR 3126), which gave rise to an inference of willful and contumacious conduct (see Goldstein v CIBC World Mkts. Corp., 30 AD3d 217 [2006]).

Section 3126 permits a conditional order striking a pleading for failure to comply with discovery demands without a prior order directing discovery.

Adinolfi v. Adinolfi · filed 1990-12-03

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, a prior court order directing discovery is not a prerequisite to the issuance of a conditional order striking a pleading for a party’s failure to comply with discovery demands (see, CPLR 3126; Wolfson v Nassau County Med. Center, 141 AD2d 815).

Section 3126 permits a court to condition striking a defendant’s answer on payment of a monetary sanction and motion costs.

Senise v. Mackasek · filed 1991-06-20

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pécora, J.), entered August 10, 1990, which granted plaintiff’s motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 3126 to the extent of directing defendants to appear for depositions on August 31, 1990, at the New York County Supreme Court, 60 Centre Street, at 10:00 a.m., unanimously modified, on the law the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant the motion to the extent of striking defendants’ answer unless, within twenty days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, defendants pay plaintiff a money sanction of $500 and motion costs and is otherwise affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 3126 does not support a prospective dismissal sanction sought before a party misses a deposition date to which the parties have agreed.

Sheinman v. Arrow Air Inc. · filed 1984-09-04

This type of in futuro sanction cannot be countenanced by the court.

Under CPLR 3126, striking an answer for failure to obey a deposition order may be too severe; relief may instead be conditioned on payment of costs and attendance at the deposition.

Golden v. Transport Taxi & Limousine Service, Ltd. · filed 1981-03-16

While we recognize that defendants’ failure to obey the court’s order requires a judicial response, the circumstances do not warrant the drastic sanction of striking their answer (see Szczepanski v Security Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of N. Y., 66 AD2d 818; Newman v Chartered New England Corp., 63 AD2d 617; Queens Farms Dairy v Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y., 63 AD2d 696; Cinelli u Radcliffe, 35 AD2d 829). Nevertheless, relief to the defendants must be conditioned on the payment of costs to the plaintiffs, and defendants’ appearance at an examination before trial, for which we have provided.

Section 3126 sanctions may be sought for failure to comply with a discovery notice without first obtaining a discovery order.

Town of East Greenbush v. Ashland Chemical Co. · filed 1984-01-19

Initially, we reject plaintiffs’ contention that defendant was required to have obtained an order for discovery pursuant to CPLR 3124 before sanctions for failure to comply could be sought under CPLR 3126.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to give a party time to correct and sign a deposition transcript before striking its answer for noncompliance.

Dorset Caterers, Inc. v. Nassau & Suffolk Dining Car & Restaurant Ass'n · filed 1971-10-12

However, since this court has wide discretion in cases of this sort it will exercise its discretion in the interest of justice and give the defendant an opportunity to conform with the rules. ... Failing this the motion is in all respects granted.

Section 3126 permits reimbursement for needless time and expenses as a condition of granting relief to a dilatory party.

Yankee Leather Goods Co. v. Sobel Sales Associates, Inc. · filed 1967-07-06

In such instances, where appropriate, as a condition to denying relief under CPLR 3126, the party imposed upon will be reimbursed for the needless time consumed and expenses incurred.

Section 3126 permits a conditional order imposing a disclosure sanction if a party fails to appear for a court-ordered examination, without a separate motion after the failure.

Burbell v. Burman · filed 1964-12-10

The order would contain the further provision that if the party did not appear as directed therein, his pleading was stricken or other penalty provided in CPLR 3126 without the requirement of a separate motion for such relief.

Section 3126 permits a court to prohibit a party who disobeys a disclosure order from presenting evidence unless the party submits to the ordered examination.

Sloan v. Sloan · filed 1968-09-05

The defendant is chargeable with knowledge of both orders and CPLR 3126 clearly applies. ... The defendant is prohibited from presenting evidence in support of his cross motion for a reduction in the alimony provision in the amended decree of separation and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion unless the defendant submits to an examination on September 18, 1968 at 11:00 a.m. at Special Term, Part II of this court.

Section 3126 permits sanctions for willful failure to disclose, but an award of damages without proof may be too severe when the conduct is not blatantly contumacious.

East Side Building Wreckers v. Anaconda Industries · filed 1985-07-11

Although, in the circumstances, Special Term could properly find defendants’ failure of compliance to have been willful, we do not consider defendants’ tactics so blatantly contumacious as to require the awarding of damages in the sum of $257,460, without proof thereof, as an appropriate sanction (see, Spancrete Northeast v Travelers Indem Co., 99 AD2d 623).