N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3126

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike an answer for failure to comply with discovery demands when the failure is willful and contumacious.

Estaba v. Quow · filed 2012-12-19

The drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the defendant’s failure to comply with discovery demands was willful and contumacious ... Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion to strike the appellants’ answer.

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading for discovery misconduct, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen · filed 2012-12-27(3)

Dismissal of a pleading is within the exercise of discretion (CPLR 3126 [3]) and subject to reversal only for abuse thereof (Zletz, 67 NY2d at 713).

CPLR 3126 permits striking a pleading for discovery noncompliance only on a clear showing that the failure was willful or contumacious.

John Hancock Life Insurance v. Triangulo Real Estate Corp. · filed 2013-01-09

Here, the drastic remedy of striking the answer was inappropriate due to the lack of a clear showing that the defendant failed to comply with court-ordered disclosure and that such failure was willful or contumacious.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike counterclaims when a party repeatedly fails to comply with discovery demands and spoliates evidence needed to defend against them.

East End Laboratories, Inc. v. Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2012-11-21

In any event, considering that the defendants, among other things, repeatedly failed to comply with the plaintiffs’ discovery demands and spoliated evidence needed by the plaintiffs to defend against the defendants’ counterclaims, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to grant that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ counterclaims (see Howe v Jeremiah, 51 AD3d 975, 975-976 [2008]; McArthur v New York City Hous. Auth., 48 AD3d 431 [2008]).

CPLR 3126 permits dismissal for repeated failure to obey discovery orders, and a conditional dismissal order can make a separate inquiry into willfulness unnecessary.

Board of Managers of the 129 Lafayette Street Condominium v. 129 Lafayette Street, LLC · filed 2013-02-19

However, plaintiff engaged in a “long continued pattern of noncompliance with court orders and discovery demands” (Jones v Green, 34 AD3d 260, 261 [1st Dept 2006]). Moreover, the July 2011 status conference order was a conditional dismissal order, which “relieve[d] [the court] of the unrewarding inquiry into whether [plaintiffs] resistance was wilful” (Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74, 82 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike pleadings when a party intentionally and without excuse fails to comply with orders to produce relevant documents.

Walker v. Foreman · filed 2013-03-12

The court providently exercised its discretion in striking plaintiffs pleadings, given plaintiffs intentional and unexcused failure to comply with more than three orders, some of them stipulated to by plaintiff, to produce documents relevant to the case (CPLR 3126; Oasis Sportswear, Inc. v Rego, 95 AD3d 592 [1st Dept 2012]).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to conditionally strike an answer when a party willfully fails to comply with a disclosure order.

Almonte v. Pichardo · filed 2013-04-03(3)

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in issuing a conditional order requiring the defendants, inter alia, to appear for depositions within a specified time or face the sanction of striking their answer.

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading for failure to disclose, but the absence of a court order requiring disclosure weighed against that sanction here.

Emigrant Mortgage Co. v. Beckerman · filed 2013-04-17(3)

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their cross motion which was to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to comply with discovery demands, as there was no court order requiring disclosure (see CPLR 3126 [3]).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike an answer for failure to comply with discovery demands, but that drastic remedy requires a clear showing of willful or contumacious conduct.

Pinto v. Tenenbaum · filed 2013-04-17

However, the drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful or contumacious ... Here, the plaintiffs failed to make such a showing.

Section 3126(3) allows an answer to be struck for a disclosure violation, but late and inadequate witness disclosure did not warrant that sanction where extensive disclosure had occurred and the failure was not willful.

Keller v. Kruger · filed 2013-03-14(3)

Even so, in light of the extensive amount of disclosure in this case, including depositions, it cannot be said that Tully’s failure to adequately provide the names and addresses of witnesses was willful.

CPLR 3126(3) permits a court to strike an answer and enter a default judgment for willful and contumacious failure to comply with discovery orders.

Suffolk P.E.T. Management, LLC v. Anand · filed 2013-04-04(3)

The motion was properly granted inasmuch as the record supports the findings that defendants engaged in willful and contumacious conduct by their failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders and directives (see CPLR 3126 [3]; Jones v Green, 34 AD3d 260 [1st Dept 2006]; Hot & Tasty Corp. v IOB Realty, 270 AD2d 67 [1st Dept 2000]).

CPLR 3126(3) permits striking a defendant’s answer for willful and contumacious refusal to appear for a deposition, but does not justify striking other defendants’ answers without a showing of their misconduct or control over that defendant.

Vieda v. Otro Rollo Tropical, Inc. · filed 2013-07-24(3)

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to strike the answer insofar as asserted on behalf of Otro (see CPLR 3126 [3]; cf. Mermelstein v Kalker, 294 AD2d 413, 414 [2002]). However, because there was no showing of willful and contumacious conduct on the part of the defendants NRP LLC II and Emmes Asset Management Company, LLC, and no showing that those defendants exercised control over Otro, they should not be precluded from defending the action (see Carabello v Luna, 49 AD3d at 680; Mills v Ducille, 170 AD2d 657 [1991]; Moriates v Powertest Petroleum Co., 114 AD2d 888, 890 [1985]).

Section 3126 does not warrant striking a complaint without a clear showing of willful and contumacious noncompliance with disclosure requests or court-ordered discovery.

Campbell v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2013-08-07

Finally, the drastic remedy of striking the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 is not warranted in this case because the defendant failed to make a clear showing that the plaintiff has engaged in a willful and contumacious pattern of noncompliance with disclosure requests or court-ordered discovery (see Orgel v Stewart Tit. Ins. Co., 91 AD3d 922, 923 [2012]; Docteur v Interfaith Med. Ctr., 90 AD3d at 815; Polsky v Tuckman, 85 AD3d 750, 751 [2011]).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike an answer when repeated failures to obey discovery orders show willful or contumacious conduct.

Edwards v. Prescott Cab Corp. · filed 2013-10-02(3)

While the nature and degree of the sanction to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter of discretion with the court (see Soto v City of Long Beach, 197 AD2d 615, 616 [1993]; Spira v Antoine, 191 AD2d 219 [1993]), “striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith” (Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663, 664 [1995]).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to deny a motion to strike an answer for delayed compliance with a conditional discovery order when the party provides a reasonable excuse and demonstrates a meritorious defense.

Windsor Owners Corp. v. Mazzocchi · filed 2013-10-15

The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion (see CPLR 3126). Defendants proffered a reasonable excuse for the delay in complying with the court’s prior conditional discovery order and demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense (see Anderson v Ariel Servs., Inc., 93 AD3d 525 [1st Dept 2012]).

Section 3126 permits a court to conditionally strike an answer when a defendant repeatedly fails to comply with court-ordered discovery and gives inadequate explanations.

Crescent Electric Supply Co. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America · filed 2013-11-13

The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in conditionally striking the answer of the Travelers defendants for their willful and contumacious conduct in repeatedly failing to comply with court-ordered discovery, coupled with inadequate explanations for these defaults (see CPLR 3126; Maignan v Nahar, 37 AD3d 557 [2007]).

Section 3126 permits striking a pleading for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery only upon a clear showing that the failure was willful and contumacious.

Holloway v. Station Bar Corp. · filed 2013-12-18(3)

A court may invoke the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, however, only upon a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious (see Facey v Silver Express Cab Corp., 87 AD3d 1053 [2011]; Patel v DeLeon, 43 AD3d 432, 433 [2007]; Williams v Ryder TRS, Inc., 29 AD3d 784, 785 [2006]).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike pleadings for disclosure failures, but doing so may be an improper exercise of discretion when a party has produced many requested items and a short, excused delay causes no demonstrated prejudice.

S.R. Garden City, LLC v. Magnacare, LLC · filed 2014-02-26

However, in the instant case, the plaintiff provided many of the requested items of disclosure. With respect to its failure to meet the final deadline imposed — April 9, 2013 — the plaintiff proffered a specific excuse — law office failure, in that the items were sent by regular mail instead of overnight mail. Further, the delay was short, and the defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the short delay (see Lampel v Sergel, 287 AD2d 548 [2001]). Given the public policy of resolving cases on the merits (see Korchak v Santana, 102 AD3d 928 [2013]; Lopes v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 744 [2009]), the striking of the plaintiffs pleadings was an improvident exercise of discretion (see Korchak v Santana, 102 AD3d 928 [2013]; Lopes v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 744 [2009]).

Section 3126(3) permits striking a pleading when a party’s failure to comply with discovery demands is willful or contumacious; repeated failures to respond or obey discovery orders can support that inference.

Espinal v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. · filed 2014-03-05(3)

However, the striking of a pleading may be an appropriate sanction where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful or contumacious (see Flynn v City of New York, 101 AD3d 803, 804 [2012]; Montemurro v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 94 AD3d 1066 [2012]; Byam v City of New York, 68 AD3d 798, 801 [2009]). The willful or contumacious character of a party’s conduct can be inferred from the party’s repeated failure to respond to demands or to comply with discovery orders (see Silberstein v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 109 AD3d 812, 814 [2013]; Montemurro v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 94 AD3d at 1066).

Section 3126 leaves discovery sanctions to the court’s discretion and permits striking a pleading only upon a clear showing that the failure to comply was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.

MOSEY, ACEA v. COUNTY OF ERIE · filed 2014-05-02

The nature and degree of a sanction to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is within the discretion of the court, and the striking of a pleading is appropriate only upon a clear showing that a party’s failure to comply with a discovery demand or order is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see Legarreta v Neal, 108 AD3d 1067, 1070-1071; Kimmel v State of New York, 286 AD2d 881, 882-883).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a defendant’s answer for repeated, unexcused failure to comply with discovery orders.

Loeb v. Assara New York I L.P. · filed 2014-06-05(3)

The court did not abuse its discretion in striking defendants’ answer, given defendants’ unexcused failure to comply with at least three court orders requiring them to provide supplemental responses to plaintiffs discovery demands and produce a witness with knowledge for deposition by specific dates (CPLR 3126 [3]; see also Williams v Shiva Ambulette Serv. Inc., 102 AD3d 598, 599 [1st Dept 2013]).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading for failure to provide discovery when the failure is clearly shown to be willful or contumacious.

Perla v. Daytree Custom Builders, Inc. · filed 2014-07-16

Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendant’s answer or its first affirmative defense, since there was no clear showing that the defendant’s failure to comply with discovery demands was willful or contumacious (see CPLR 3126; Hoi Wah Lai v Mack, 89 AD3d 990, 991 [2011]; Delarosa v Besser Co., 86 AD3d 588, 589 [2011]; Palomba v Schindler El. Corp., 74 AD3d 1037, 1037-1038 [2010]).

CPLR 3126(3) permits striking an answer for discovery failures only upon a clear showing of willful or contumacious noncompliance.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles · filed 2014-07-30(3)

This was insufficient to show a pattern of willful and contumacious failure to respond to discovery demands or comply with disclosure orders, so as to justify the relief granted by the Supreme Court.

Section 3126(3) allows a court to strike a pleading when a party willfully and contumaciously fails to comply with discovery orders.

Stone v. Zinoukhova · filed 2014-07-30(3)

When a party fails to comply with a court order and frustrates the disclosure scheme set forth in the CPLR, it is within the court’s discretion to strike the “pleadings or parts thereof’ (CPLR 3126 [3]) as a sanction against such party (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122 [1999]; Edwards v Prescott Cab Corp., 110 AD3d 671 [2013]; Friedman, Harfenist, Langer & Kraut v Rosenthal, 79 AD3d 798 [2010]).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading for a discovery failure only upon a clear showing that the failure was willful and contumacious.

Dutchess Truck Repair, Inc. v. Boyce · filed 2014-08-13(3)

Because the plaintiffs ... failed to demonstrate that the conduct of the defendants Joe Boyce and Sally Boyce was willful and contumacious, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike their answer pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading for willful, contumacious, or bad faith failure to comply with discovery demands when the party offers no reasonable excuse.

ALLEN, MARCIA v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. · filed 2014-10-03(3)

Here, the court properly determined that defendant met its initial burden of establishing willful, contumacious or bad faith conduct by plaintiff, thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff to offer a reasonable excuse (see Hill v Oberoi, 13 AD3d 1095, 1096; Herrera v City of New York, 238 AD2d 475, 476). Plaintiff failed to meet her burden (see Hill, 13 AD3d at 1096; Nunn v GTE Sylvania, 251 AD2d 1089, 1091), and we therefore conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion by striking the complaint in action No. 2.

CPLR 3126 (3) permits a court to strike a pleading when a party willfully fails to comply with discovery and fails to offer a reasonable excuse.

Allen v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2014-10-03(3)

Plaintiff failed to meet her burden ... and we therefore conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion by striking the complaint in action No. 2.

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading for failure to comply with discovery demands when there is a clear showing of willful or contumacious conduct.

Deer Park Associates v. Town of Babylon · filed 2014-10-08(3)

“[T]he striking of a pleading may be an appropriate sanction where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful or contumacious” (Espinal v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 115 AD3d 641, 641 [2014]; see CPLR 3126 [3]). ... Here, the appellants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs did not turn over materials that were in the plaintiffs’ possession and responsive to the appellants’ discovery requests, or that the plaintiffs’ submissions in response to their discovery demands were otherwise inadequate (see Cooper v Cooper, 84 AD3d 854, 856 [2011]).

CPLR 3126 permits striking a pleading for failure to comply with discovery demands or orders when the failure is clearly willful and contumacious.

Mangione v. Jacobs · filed 2014-10-22

However, the drastic remedy of striking a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 should not be imposed unless the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders is clearly willful and contumacious.

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike an answer and grant a default judgment for failure to comply with discovery obligations.

Robinson v. Plaro Estates, Inc. · filed 2014-07-02(3)

With respect to the amended order dated August 20, 2007, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a default judgment and in striking the defendants’ answer (see CPLR 3126 [3]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]; Pinto v Tenenbaum, 105 AD3d 930, 931 [2013]; Mangru v Schering Corp., 90 AD3d 621 [2011]; Commisso v Orshan, 85 AD3d 845 [2011]).

CPLR 3126(3) does not justify striking a pleading without a clear showing of willful or contumacious failure to comply with discovery demands.

Holand v. Cascino · filed 2014-11-05(3)

While the defendant was clearly dissatisfied with the responses to his demands, there was no showing of a pattern of willful failure to respond to discovery demands or comply with disclosure orders, so as to justify dismissing the complaint and striking the reply to counterclaims (see Matter of Blauman-Spindler v Blauman, 68 AD3d 1105, 1107 [2009]; Walter B. Melvin, Architects, LLC v 24 Aqueduct Lane Condominium, 51 AD3d at 785).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading when a party’s willful failure to meet discovery obligations warrants that sanction.

BDS Copy Inks, Inc. v. International Paper · filed 2014-12-11(3)

Where a trial court determines that a party has failed to comply with its discovery obligations, it has broad discretion to remedy the violation (see CPLR 3126), "and the sanction imposed is not disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion" (D.A. Bennett LLC v Cartz, 113 AD3d 945, 946 [2014]; see Hameroff & Sons, LLC v Plank, LLC, 108 AD3d 908, 909 [2013]). ... Under the circumstances, we thus conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants' motion and striking plaintiffs' complaint.

CPLR 3126 requires a clear showing of wilful or contumacious discovery noncompliance before a complaint may be dismissed.

Warner v. Orange County Regional Medical Center · filed 2015-03-18

The drastic remedy of striking a pleading is not appropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands was wilful or contumacious (see CPLR 3126; Liang v Yi Jing Tan, 98 AD3d 653, 654 [2012]).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a party’s answer when repeated failures to comply with discovery demands or orders, without an adequate excuse, support an inference of willful and contumacious conduct.

Brandenburg v. County of Rockland Sewer Dist. 1, State of N.Y. · filed 2015-04-01

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the appellant’s answer.

Section 3126 permits striking a pleading for discovery noncompliance only when the resisting party’s conduct is willful and contumacious.

Crystal Clear Development, LLC v. Devon Architects of New York, P.C. · filed 2015-04-15(3)

However, the drastic remedy of the striking of a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 is appropriate only where the conduct of the resisting party is shown to be willful and contumacious (see Holand v Cascino, 122 AD3d 575 [2014]; Pirro Group, LLC v One Point St., Inc., 71 AD3d at 655; Workman v Town of Southampton, 69 AD3d at 620; Eagle Star Ins. Co. of Am. v Behar, 207 AD2d 326, 326 [1994]).

Section 3126(3) permits striking an answer for discovery noncompliance only upon a clear showing that the failure was willful and contumacious.

Poveromo v. Kelley-Amerit Fleet Services, Inc. · filed 2015-04-22(3)

Here, there was no clear showing that the defendant’s conduct was willful and contumacious.

Section 3126 permits striking a complaint when a plaintiff repeatedly fails to appear for court-ordered depositions and offers no reasonable excuse for violating a conditional order.

Rivera v. City of New York · filed 2015-05-21

Plaintiffs noncompliance with six court orders issued in a two-year period directing her to appear for a deposition culminated in an order directing her to appear for a deposition and stating that failure to appear would result in the striking of the complaint (see CPLR 3126). ... Thus, she failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear so as to relieve herself of the sanction imposed by the conditional order (see Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74 [2010]; Reidel v Ryder TRS, Inc., 13 AD3d 170, 171 [1st Dept 2004]).

Section 3126 gives courts discretion to deny a request to strike an answer for alleged failure to comply with discovery demands and notices.

Amos v. Southampton Hospital · filed 2015-09-02

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of their motion which was to strike the Hospital’s answer, based on its alleged failure to comply with discovery demands and notices (see CPLR 3126; Nunez v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr.Schneider Children’s Hosp., 82 AD3d 724, 725 [2011]; cf. Commisso v Orshan, 85 AD3d 845, 845 [2011]).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike an answer when repeated failures to comply with discovery demands and orders, without an adequate excuse, show willful and contumacious conduct.

Lazar, Sanders, Thaler & Associates, LLP v. Lazar · filed 2015-09-23

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the appellants’ answer.

A court has discretion under CPLR 3126 to deny a motion to strike a party’s answer.

Dennis v. 1 Brooklyn Furniture Store · filed 2015-09-23

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answers.

CPLR 3126 (3) permits a court to strike an answer when a party repeatedly and willfully fails to comply with discovery orders.

Parker Waichman, LLP v. Laraia · filed 2015-09-30(3)

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) to strike the defendant’s answer upon his repeated and willful failure to provide substantive responses to the discovery demands of the plaintiff, even after the court issued orders directing him to do so, including a conditional preclusion order dated July 25, 2014.

CPLR 3126 permits striking a pleading for failure to comply with discovery demands or orders only when the failure was clearly willful and contumacious.

New York Timber, LLC v. Seneca Companies · filed 2015-11-04

Moreover, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint for the plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. The drastic remedy of striking a pleading should not be imposed unless the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders was clearly willful and contumacious (see Arpino v F.J.F. & Sons Elec. Co., Inc., 102 AD3d 201, 210 [2012]; Zakhidov v Boulevard Tenants Corp., 96 AD3d 737, 739 [2012]; Commisso v Orshan, 85 AD3d 845 [2011]).

Section 3126 permits dismissal as a discovery sanction when an unexplained failure to respond to demands without objection supports an inference of willful noncompliance.

People v. Ramrup · filed 2016-01-12

Furthermore, CPLR 3126 stresses that, in the absence of an excuse for delay in responding to discovery demands and a party’s failure to object to the demands, an inference is drawn that the failure to comply was willful, and would necessitate an order to dismiss as a sanction.

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a defendant’s answer for willful and contumacious failure to comply with discovery.

Ozeri v. Ozeri · filed 2016-01-20

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by, in effect, granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendant’s answer.

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading when a party willfully or in bad faith fails to comply with court-ordered disclosure.

Wolmark v. Approved Staffing, LLC · filed 2016-02-05(3)

Although striking an answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a drastic remedy, it is warranted where a party's conduct is shown to be willful, contumacious or in bad faith ( see Rock City Sound, Inc. v Bashian & Farber, LLP , 83 AD3d 685 [2011]). Here, the fact that defendant's conduct was willful and contumacious can be inferred from defendant's continuous refusal to adequately comply with discovery requests and deposition deadlines, even after being directed to do so by several court orders.

Section 3126 permits striking an answer for failure to comply with discovery demands only upon a clear showing that the failure was willful or contumacious.

O.K. Petroleum International, Ltd. v. Palmieri & Castiglione, LLP · filed 2016-02-10

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 which was to strike the defendant’s answer. The drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful or contumacious ... Here, the plaintiffs failed to make such a showing.

CPLR 3126 (3) permits striking a pleading and awarding a default judgment for discovery noncompliance only upon a clear showing that the noncompliance was willful and contumacious.

Singer v. Riskin · filed 2016-03-16(3)

Under the circumstances, the appellants did not make a clear showing that the delays in this case were willful and contumacious such that the drastic remedy of striking the complaint and awarding the appellants a default judgment on their counterclaim against Singer would be warranted.

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading when a party willfully fails to provide required disclosure; repeated failures to obey discovery orders can establish willfulness.

Shah v. Oral Cancer Prevention International, Inc. · filed 2016-04-06(3)

CPLR 3126 (3) authorizes the court to strike pleadings for refusal or willful failure to disclose information which “the court finds ought to have been disclosed.” ... Here, the defendants repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure, offering inadequate excuses and ultimately no excuses.

Striking a pleading under CPLR 3126 was not warranted where the evidence did not show that the failure to comply timely with discovery orders was willful and contumacious.

Giordano v. Giordano · filed 2016-06-01

As to the merits, the evidence proffered did not show that the plaintiff’s conduct in failing to timely comply with discovery orders was willful and contumacious ... Accordingly, the striking of the plaintiff’s pleadings was not warranted.

CPLR 3126 permits dismissal when a party willfully and contumaciously fails to comply with court-ordered discovery; repeated failures without a reasonable excuse can support that finding.

Field v. Bao · filed 2016-06-15

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ separate motions pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

CPLR 3126 permits striking a pleading for discovery noncompliance only upon a clear showing of willful and contumacious conduct.

Henry v. Datson · filed 2016-06-29

Thus, the extreme sanction of striking Sohal’s answer was not warranted, as the evidence does not support an inference of willful and contumacious conduct (see Singer v Riskin, 137 AD3d at 1001; Krause v Lobacz, 131 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2015]; De Leo v State-Whitehall Co., 126 AD3d 750, 752 [2015]; Vaccaro v Weinstein, 117 AD3d 1033 [2014]). ... Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike Sohal’s answer.

Section 3126 generally requires a clear showing of willful and contumacious conduct before a court strikes a party’s pleading for failure to comply with discovery.

CEMD Elevator Corp. v. Metrotech LLC · filed 2016-07-14

Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer and for summary judgment on its complaint should have been denied. Striking a party’s pleadings is a drastic sanction, and will generally be made only upon a clear showing that the party’s conduct was willful and contumacious (see Catarine v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 290 AD2d 213, 215 [1st Dept 2002]; see also Frye v City of New York, 228 AD2d 182 [1st Dept 1996]).

Section 3126(3) allows a court to strike a pleading for discovery failures, but a reasonable excuse can make that sanction unwarranted.

Pesce v. Fernandez · filed 2016-11-02(3)

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) to strike the complaint. The plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her failure to respond to the defendant’s discovery demands over an extended period of time.

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a complaint for refusal to obey a disclosure order or willful failure to disclose information the court finds should have been disclosed.

Citibank, NA v. Abrams · filed 2016-11-03

Here, defendants failed to obtain an order of disclosure and failed to demonstrate that plaintiff willfully failed to obey an order to disclose information that the court determined ought to have been disclosed. As such, defendants were not entitled to have the complaint stricken on this basis (see CPLR 3126; CDR Créances S.A.S. v Cohen, 23 NY3d at 317; Appler v Riverview Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 9 AD3d at 578).

CPLR 3126 permits dismissal of a claim when a party’s failure to comply with court-ordered discovery is willful and contumacious.

Bruno v. Flip Cab Corp. · filed 2016-11-16

However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that unopposed branch of Ingram’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the derivative cause of action for loss of services insofar as asserted against him only to the extent of precluding the plaintiff Jill M. Livoti from offering testimony at trial if she did not appear for a deposition within 30 days.

CPLR 3126 permits striking a pleading for failure to comply with discovery demands or orders only when the failure is clearly willful and contumacious.

Teitelbaum v. Maimonides Medical Center · filed 2016-11-23

However, the drastic remedy of striking a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 should not be imposed unless the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders is clearly willful and contumacious.

Section 3126(3) does not support striking a pleading for failure to provide discovery when willful and contumacious noncompliance is not shown.

Shahid v. City of New York · filed 2016-11-30(3)

Moreover, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the City’s motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3126 and 3042 to strike that portion of the complaint which alleged injury to property for failure to comply with its demand for a bill of particulars and discovery. The City did not assert or demonstrate that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with its demand for a bill of particulars and discovery was willful and contumacious (see CPLR 3042 [c], [d]; 3126 [3]; 6 Harbor Park Dr., LLC v Town of N. Hempstead, 127 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2015]; Charter One Bank v Houston, 300 AD2d 429, 430 [2002]; Randazzo v Our Lady of Mercy Med. Ctr., 284 AD2d 158, 158 [2001]).

Section 3126 does not warrant striking an answer when a party has responded to discovery and the movant has not shown noncompliance with court orders.

Peters v. Peters · filed 2017-01-10

Although plaintiff may not be satisfied with this response, it does not evince noncompliance with court orders warranting the striking of defendants’ answers.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading for willful and contumacious failure to comply with discovery demands or orders when a monetary sanction is insufficient.

Lucas v. Stam · filed 2017-02-15(3)

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, we find that the imposition of monetary sanctions was insufficient to punish the defendants and their counsel for their willful and contumacious conduct in failing to timely and fully respond to discovery demands and court orders. Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to strike the defendants' answers.

Section 3126 leaves discovery sanctions to the court’s discretion and permits striking a pleading only upon a clear showing that the failure to comply was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.

MOSEY, ACEA v. COUNTY OF ERIE · filed 2017-03-24

As we stated in the prior appeal, “[t]he nature and degree of a sanction to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is within the discretion of the court, and the striking of a pleading is appropriate only upon a clear showing that a party’s failure to comply with a discovery demand or order is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith” (Mosey, 117 AD3d at 1384). Under the circumstances of this case, which include a change in the County’s legal representation (see Corner Realty 30/7 v Bernstein Mgt. Corp., 249 AD2d 191, 193), as well as differing interpretations of communications between the parties, we decline to disturb the court’s determination that the extreme sanction of striking the answer is not warranted (see CPLR 3126; Sayomi v Rolls Kohn & Assoc., LLP, 16 AD3d 1069, 1070; cf. Hann v Black, 96 AD3d 1503, 1504-1505).

Section 3126 permits striking an answer for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery only when the default is clearly deliberate and contumacious or in bad faith.

Cach, LLC v. Dean · filed 2017-03-31(3)

The drastic sanction of striking defendant's answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failing to comply with court-ordered discovery should be used only where the resisting party's default is clearly shown to be deliberate and contumacious or in bad faith ( see Byrne v City of New York , 301 AD2d 489 [2003]). Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant established a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the court-ordered discovery and a possible meritorious defense.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a party’s answer and allow a default judgment when repeated, unexcused failures to comply with discovery demands and orders show willful and contumacious conduct.

Mears v. Long · filed 2017-04-12

Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer and for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants.

Section 3126 permits striking a pleading for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery only upon a clear showing that the failure was willful and contumacious.

Nunez v. Laidlaw · filed 2017-05-24

Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to strike the answer.

Section 3126 does not justify striking an answer merely because the parties entered into stipulations extending discovery deadlines.

Mew v. Civitano · filed 2017-06-14

Here, in support of that branch of her motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer, the plaintiff merely demonstrated that the parties entered into several so-ordered stipulations extending a stay of the action pending the completion of outstanding discovery and extending the time for the parties to conduct depositions.

CPLR 3126 does not warrant striking an answer for delayed interrogatory responses when the delay is not willful and contumacious and causes no prejudice.

Law Offices of Russell I. Marnell v. Sanabria · filed 2017-06-22

Upon the record before us, it does not appear that the pro se defendant’s conduct was willful and contumacious and, thus, the drastic sanction of striking her answer is not warranted, given the lack of prejudice to plaintiff as a result of defendant’s delay in answering the interrogatories (see Pezhman v Department ofEduc. of the City ofN.Y., 95 AD3d 625 [1st Dept 2012]; Cigna Prop. & Cas. Co. v Decoration & Design Bldg. Partnership, 268 AD2d 223 [1st Dept 2000]; Ciándolo v Trism Specialized Carriers, 274 AD2d 369 [2d Dept 2000]).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading when repeated failures to comply with discovery demands or orders, without an adequate excuse, show willful and contumacious conduct.

Schiller v. Sunharbor Acquisition I, LLC · filed 2017-07-26

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer.

CPLR 3126 allows a court to deny a motion to strike a pleading for delayed discovery when the failure is not willful and contumacious.

Sinclair v. City of New York · filed 2017-08-23

While there is no dispute that the defendants have failed to provide certain discovery, given the defendants’ explanation for the delay, we find that the defendants’ conduct was not willful and contumacious, and the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ answer.

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a party’s pleading for failure to comply with disclosure, but the sanction requires a clear showing of willful and contumacious conduct.

Arger-Medina v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey · filed 2017-09-28

CPLR 3126 provides, inter alia, that if a party to an action refuses to obey an order for disclosure, the court may issue an order striking out the party’s pleadings. ... Thus, plaintiffs have failed to show that Officer Speciale’s failure to comply with discovery demands or court-ordered discovery was the result of willful and contumacious conduct.

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading for discovery noncompliance when the failure to comply is willful and contumacious.

Park Side Construction Contractors, Inc. v. Bryan's Quality Plus, LLC · filed 2017-12-20

Here, the court providently exercised its discretion in determining that striking Park Side’s pleadings pursuant to CPLR 3126 was not warranted because the BQP parties failed to demonstrate that Park Side engaged in a willful and contumacious pattern of noncompliance with disclosure requests or court-ordered discovery (see Kanic Realty Assoc., Inc. v Suffolk County Water Auth., 130 AD3d 876, 877 [2015]; Campbell v New York City Tr. Auth., 109 AD3d 455, 456 [2013]; Friedman, Harfenist, Langer & Kraut v Rosenthal, 79 AD3d at 801).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike an answer for willful and contumacious failure to obey discovery orders, without requiring the opposing party to show prejudice.

Watson v. City of New York · filed 2018-01-16

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, "[i]f any party . . . refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed, pursuant to this article, the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just." ... Based on such dilatory conduct and the City defendants' failure to comply with multiple court orders, forcing the plaintiff to make multiple motions seeking discovery which the City defendants were ordered to produce years prior, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in striking the City defendants' answer and this Court will not substitute its discretion for that of the motion court.

Section 3126(3) permits striking an answer for discovery noncompliance only upon a clear showing of willful and contumacious conduct.

PAL Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. LJC Dismantling Corp. · filed 2018-01-17(3)

The very limited evidence before the Supreme Court was insufficient to establish that the defendant failed to substantially comply with the terms of the stipulation, let alone that any such failure was willful or contumacious ( see Singer v Riskin , 137 AD3d at 1001). Accordingly, the court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) to strike the defendant's answer.

Section 3126 permits striking a complaint for discovery misconduct only upon a clear showing that the party’s conduct was willful and contumacious.

Casanas v. Carlei Group, LLC · filed 2017-04-13

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for an order striking the complaint, since such a drastic sanction is generally warranted “only upon a clear showing that the party’s conduct was willful and contumacious” (CEMD El. Corp. v Metrotech LLC I, 141 AD3d 451, 453 [1st Dept 2016]; see Perez v New York City Tr. Auth., 73 AD3d 529 [1st Dept 2010]).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike an answer for willful and contumacious failure to meet court-ordered discovery deadlines.

Rodriguez v. Nevei Bais, Inc. · filed 2018-02-27

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in striking defendant's answer on the ground of defendant's willful and contumacious failure to meet multiple court-ordered discovery deadlines ( see CPLR 3126; Langer v Miller , 281 AD2d 338 [1st Dept 2001]; Helms v Gangemi , 265 AD2d 203, 204 [1st Dept 1999]).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading when repeated failures to comply with discovery orders show willful and contumacious conduct.

Kuang v. MetLife · filed 2018-03-21(3)

Given the history of this case and the plaintiff's willful and contumacious conduct in trying to frustrate the discovery process, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in not granting that branch of the Yangs' motion which was to strike the plaintiff's complaint ( see Lucas v Stam, 147 AD3d at 926; Arpino v F.J.F. & Sons Elec. Co., Inc., 102 AD3d at 210; Orgel v Stewart Tit. Ins. Co., 91 AD3d at 924).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading for willful failure to disclose, and the sanction is reviewed for clear abuse of discretion.

U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Harrington · filed 2018-04-19(3)

Accordingly, based upon our review of the record as a whole, we are unable to find that Supreme Court clearly abused its discretion in remedying plaintiff's noncompliance by striking plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike pleadings when a party willfully and contumaciously fails to meet its discovery obligations without reasonable excuse.

Rosengarten v. Born · filed 2018-05-10

The motion court's decision to strike, based on a finding that defendants' conduct with respect to its discovery obligations was willful and contumacious and without reasonable excuse, was a proper exercise of its discretion ( see e.g. Spira v Antoine 191 Ad2d 219 [1st Dept 1993]; CPLR 3126).

CPLR 3126 permits dismissal of a complaint when a party's repeated failure to comply with discovery is willful and contumacious.

Westervelt v. Westervelt · filed 2018-07-25

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint ( see Corex-SPA v Janel Group of N.Y., Inc. , 156 AD3d at 601-602; Bruno v Flip Cab Corp. , 144 AD3d at 853-854; Wolf v Flowers , 122 AD3d at 729; Shuba v City of New York , 107 AD3d at 878-879; Dokaj v Ruxton Tower Ltd. Partnership , 91 AD3d at 814).

Section 3126 gives courts discretion to deny a motion to strike an answer for discovery noncompliance when the delay was not wilful, caused no prejudice, and the responding party may have a meritorious claim.

Liberty Petroleum Realty, LLC v. Gulf Oil, L.P. · filed 2018-08-02

The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' answers pursuant to CPLR 3126 ( see Robiou v City of New York , 89 AD3d 587, 588 [1st Dept 2011]). The motion court was within its discretion to find that defendants' conduct was not wilful, in that the delay was primarily caused by an unrelated business transaction ( see Roman v City of New York , 38 AD3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2007]). In addition, the motion court found no prejudice, which plaintiffs do not dispute ( see Curiel v Loews Cineplex Theaters, Inc. , 68 AD3d 415, 415-416 [1st Dept 2009]), and defendants' claim may be meritorious ( see Windsor Owners Corp. v Mazzocchi , 110 AD3d 506 [1st Dept 2013]).

Section 3126(3) permits a conditional order striking a complaint when a party fails to comply with discovery orders.

Anderson & Anderson LLP-Guangzhou v. North Am. Foreign Trading Corp. · filed 2018-10-18(3)

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the conditional order was improperly entered. It is undisputed that plaintiffs failed to comply with the court's October 19 and December 13, 2016 status conference orders or to respond substantively to defendant's request to meet and confer ( see CPLR 3126[3]; Gibbs , 16 NY3d at 79; Henderson-Jones v City of New York , 87 AD3d 498, 504 [1st Dept 2011]).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading when a party's failure to comply with discovery demands is willful and contumacious.

Smookler v. Dicerbo · filed 2018-11-14(3)

The striking of a pleading may be appropriate as a sanction where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful and contumacious ( see CPLR 3126[3]; Quinones v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr. , 90 AD3d at 632-633; Devito v J & J Towing, Inc. , 17 AD3d 624, 625).

Section 3126(3) permits striking a complaint when a party's failure to respond to discovery demands and comply with discovery orders is willful and contumacious.

Soto v. Chelsea W26, LLC · filed 2018-11-28(3)

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendants' motion. The record demonstrates that the plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery demands and comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious ( see Teitelbaum v Maimonides Med. Ctr. , 144 AD3d 1013; Orgel v Stewart Tit. Ins. Co. , 91 AD3d 922, 923; Rock City Sound, Inc. v Bashian & Farber, LLP , 83 AD3d 685, 686-687).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a defendant’s answer for willful failure to comply with discovery orders.

Suarez v. Dameco Indus., Inc. · filed 2018-12-13

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion to strike Dameco's answer for willful failure to comply with discovery orders ( see CPLR 3126).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a complaint for repeated, willful refusals to provide discovery and comply with court orders.

Harris v. Kay · filed 2019-01-03(3)

The court did not abuse its discretion in striking the complaint, given plaintiff's repeated, willful and contumacious refusals to provide discovery and to comply with court's orders over an approximately eight-year period ( see McHugh v City of New York , 150 AD3d 561, 562 [1st Dept 2017]; Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler , 75 AD3d 219, 221-222 [1st Dept 2010]; see generally Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v Global Strat Inc. , 22 NY3d 877, 880 [2013]).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading when repeated, unexcused failures to provide discovery support an inference of willful and contumacious conduct.

Broccoli v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc. · filed 2019-04-10

Here, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the willful and contumacious character of her conduct could properly be inferred from her repeated failures, without an adequate excuse, to respond to discovery demands and to comply with the Supreme Court's orders to provide outstanding authorizations ( see Smookler v Dicerbo , 166 AD3d at 839-840; Montemurro v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr. , 94 AD3d 1066; Tos v Jackson Hgts. Care Ctr., LLC , 91 AD3d at 944).

CPLR 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading when a party willfully fails to provide required disclosure; repeated noncompliance without a reasonable excuse can support that sanction.

McNelis v. Thomas · filed 2019-04-17(3)

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, 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," the court may, inter alia, strike that party's pleadings or portions thereof (CPLR 3126[3]; see CDR Créances S.A.S. v Cohen , 23 NY3d 307, 317-318; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v Global Strat [*2]Inc. , 22 NY3d 877, 880; Kihl v Pfeffer , 94 NY2d 118, 122). ... Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by granting the sanction of striking the complaint ( see Commisso v Orshan , 85 AD3d 845; see also Patino v Carlyle Three, LLC , 148 AD3d 1175, 1177; Piemonte v JSF Realty, LLC , 140 AD3d 1145, 1145-1146).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading when prolonged failure to comply with discovery supports a finding of willful and contumacious conduct.

Madonna Mgt. Servs., Inc. v. R.S. Naghavi, M.D., PLLC · filed 2019-05-08(3)

Here, the willful and contumacious character of the defendants' conduct may be inferred from their failure to comply with the conditional order, and to adequately respond to the plaintiff's postdeposition discovery demands over an extended period of time. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking the defendants' answer and awarding judgment to the plaintiff ( see Williams v Suttle , 168 AD3d 792; Morales v Zherka , 140 AD3d at 837; Parker Waichman, LLP v Laraia , 131 AD3d at 1216).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading for failure to disclose, but striking a complaint requires a clear showing that the failure was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.

Nash v. MRC Recovery, Inc. · filed 2019-05-22(3)

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against the MRC defendants ( see Park Side Constr. Contrs., Inc. v Bryan's Quality Plus, LLC , 156 AD3d 804, 806). ... While the nature and degree of the sanction to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter of discretion with the court ( see Soto v City of Long Beach , 197 AD2d 615, 616; Spira v Antoine , 191 AD2d 219), striking a complaint "is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious or in bad faith" ( Harris v City of New York , 211 AD2d 663, 664).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a complaint when a plaintiff willfully and contumaciously fails to comply with discovery orders.

SW Prods., Inc. v. CBGB Festival, LLC · filed 2019-05-23(3)

The motion court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in granting the motion to strike the complaint. The record demonstrates that plaintiff willfully and contumaciously failed to meaningfully comply with its discovery obligations as set forth in several court orders ( see e.g. Eli Cabinetry, Inc. v P.C. Consulting Mgt. Corp. , 158 AD3d 482 [1st Dept 2018]; Anron Heating & A.C., Inc. v AMCC Corp. , 133 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2015]; CPLR 3126[3]).

Section 3126 permits striking a pleading for discovery misconduct when there is a clear showing of willful and contumacious noncompliance.

Rector v. City of New York · filed 2019-07-10

Under the circumstances presented here, the plaintiff did not show that the actions of NYCHA in allegedly delaying its production of a witness for a deposition, and in its allegedly inadequate responses to a demand for discovery and inspection, constituted willful and contumacious or bad faith conduct that would warrant the drastic remedy of striking its answer.

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading when a party's failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.

Peterson v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. · filed 2019-07-31(3)

We reject plaintiffs' contentions in both appeals that the court abused its discretion in striking their respective complaints and dismissing the actions pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3). ... "[T]he striking of a pleading is appropriate only where [the moving party establishes] that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith" ( Hann , 96 AD3d at 1504 [internal quotation marks omitted]). ... Thus, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motions to strike the complaints and dismissing the actions.

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a complaint when a party willfully or contumaciously fails to provide required disclosure.

Cohen v. Zatcoff · filed 2019-03-22(3)

Although dismissing a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a drastic remedy, it is warranted where a party's conduct is shown to be willful, contumacious or in bad faith ( see Rock City Sound, Inc. v Bashian & Farber, LLP , 83 AD3d 685 [2011]). In the case at bar, plaintiff's willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from his disregarding both defendant's demands for disclosure and the so-ordered stipulation without any excuse, let alone a reasonable excuse ( see Commisso v Orshan , 85 AD3d 845 [2011]; Howe v Jeremiah , 51 AD3d 975 [2008]).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading for discovery violations only on a clear showing of willful, contumacious, or bad faith conduct.

Pezzino v. Wedgewood Health Care Ctr., LLC · filed 2019-08-22

We thus conclude, in the exercise of our own discretion ( see Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London , 11 NY3d at 845), that defendant's conduct does not warrant the striking of its answer as to liability.

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading when a party's failure to comply with discovery demands is willful and contumacious.

Ahmed v. Ahmed · filed 2019-09-18(3)

The striking of a pleading may be appropriate as a sanction where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful and contumacious ( see CPLR 3126[3]; Montemurro v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr. , 94 AD3d 1066, 1066; Devito v J & J Towing, Inc. , 17 AD3d 624, 625).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike an answer for willful and contumacious failure to comply with court-ordered discovery; repeated failures without an adequate explanation can establish that conduct.

Sparakis v. Gozzer Corp. · filed 2019-11-27(3)

Here, Aktor's willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from its repeated failure to timely and fully respond to the plaintiffs' discovery demand, and the absence of an adequate explanation for its failure to comply with the deadlines set forth in the preliminary conference order, the compliance conference order, and the parties' stipulation ( see Corex-SPA v Janel Group of N.Y., Inc. , 156 AD3d at 601; Lucas v Stam , 147 AD3d at 925; Lazar, Sanders, Thaler & Assoc., LLP v Lazer , 131 AD3d at 1134). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to strike the answer and counterclaims insofar as asserted on behalf of Aktor.

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading when a party repeatedly disobeys disclosure orders without an adequate explanation.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Branker · filed 2019-11-27(3)

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendant's cross motion to strike the complaint. The willful or contumacious character of the plaintiff's conduct could be properly inferred from the repeated failures to comply with the court's orders directing the plaintiff to respond to the defendant's discovery request, the plaintiff's consent to produce the requested documents, and the plaintiff's lack of an adequate explanation for the failure to comply ( see Smookler v Dicerbo , 166 AD3d at 839-840; Montemurro v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr. , 94 AD3d 1066; Tos v Jackson Hgts. Care Ctr., LLC , 91 AD3d at 944).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a party’s pleading when repeated violations of discovery orders show willful and contumacious conduct.

Bouri v. Jackson · filed 2019-11-27(3)

Although actions should be resolved on the merits wherever possible ( see Cruzatti v St. Mary's Hosp. , 193 AD2d 579, 580), a court may strike the "pleadings or parts thereof" (CPLR 3126[3]) as a sanction against 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" (CPLR 3126). ... Here, given the defendant's repeated violations of court orders to appear for his deposition, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, upon renewal, in adhering to its original determination granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to strike the defendant's answer ( see Kryzhanovskaya v City of New York , 31 AD3d 717; Montgomery v City of New York , 296 AD2d 386, 386-87).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a defendant's answer for discovery noncompliance.

Bouri v. Jackson · filed 2019-11-27

For the reasons discussed in our decision and order on a related appeal ( see Bouri v Jackson , ___ AD3d ___ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2017-07680; decided herewith]), the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendant's answer and denied, as academic, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident.

CPLR 3126 gives trial courts discretion to choose a discovery sanction, but striking a pleading is reserved for willful, contumacious, or bad faith noncompliance.

Mesiti v. Weiss · filed 2019-12-26

Although it is well settled that "the nature and degree of the penalty imposed on a motion to strike pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent a clear abuse of such discretion, the court's choice of remedy will not be disturbed" ( Altu v Clark , 20 AD3d 749, 750 [2005]; see U.S. Bank N.A. v Harrington , 160 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2018]; BDS Copy Inks, Inc. v International Paper , 123 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2014]), the generally preferred policy is for actions to be resolved on the merits ( see Gokey v DeCicco , 24 AD3d 860, 861 [2005]). Accordingly, although a court may strike a pleading "as a penalty for noncompliance with disclosure demands or orders, this type of drastic remedy is reserved for situations where a party's failure to comply is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith" ( Green Tree Servicing LLC v Bormann , 157 AD3d 1112, 1113 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

CPLR 3126 permits striking an answer for discovery violations when there is a clear showing of willful or contumacious conduct.

Burrell v. Baptista · filed 2020-02-26

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the record does not establish a clear showing of a pattern of willfulness or contumacious conduct necessary to justify the striking of the defendant's answer pursuant to CPLR 3126, and the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' renewed motion for discovery sanctions ( see Warner v Orange County Regional Med. Ctr. , 126 AD3d at 887; Scorzari v Pezza , 111 AD3d 916, 916-917; Tornheim v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp. , 73 AD3d at 746).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading for failure to comply with discovery only upon a clear showing of willful and contumacious conduct, which may be inferred from repeated or prolonged noncompliance without an adequate explanation.

Maruf v. E.B. Mgt. Props., LLC · filed 2020-03-11

Before a court invokes the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery was willful and contumacious ( see Harris v City of New York , 117 AD3d 790 ; Almonte v Pichardo , 105 AD3d 687 , 688). Willful and contumacious conduct may be inferred from a party's repeated failure to comply with discovery, coupled with inadequate explanations for those failures, or a failure to comply with discovery over an extended period of time ( see Teitelbaum v Maimonides Med. Ctr. , 144 AD3d 1013 ; Orgel v Stewart Tit. Ins. Co. , 91 AD3d 922 , 923). Here, on his motion to vacate, the plaintiff did not provide an explanation for his failure to comply with discovery over the course of one year, despite four stipulations requiring the disclosure ( see Orgel v Stewart Tit. Ins. Co. , 91 AD3d at 924).

Section 3126 allows a court to deny a request to strike an answer when discovery noncompliance is not willful, contumacious or in bad faith.

Parkinson v. Fedex Corp. · filed 2020-06-04

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to strike, as the record does not show that defendants' noncompliance with the court's eight prior discovery orders was willful, contumacious or due to bad faith ( see Lee v 13th St. Entertainment LLC , 161 AD3d 631 [1st Dept 2018]; Ayala v Lincoln Med. & Mental Health Ctr. , 92 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2012]).

Section 3126 does not permit dismissal of a complaint for discovery noncompliance without a showing that the conduct was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.

Windnagle v. Tarnacki · filed 2020-06-12

In appeal No. 1, we agree with plaintiff that the court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice as a sanction for plaintiff's noncompliance with the scheduling order. ... Here, defendants made no showing that plaintiff's noncompliance with the court's scheduling order was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith, and the court made no such finding ( see Integrated Voice & Data Sys., Inc. v Groh , 147 AD3d 1302, 1304 [4th Dept 2017]).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike an answer when repeated failure to obey discovery orders is willful and contumacious.

Ritornato v. Ritornato · filed 2020-09-16

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was to strike the defendant's answer. ... In light of the defendant's repeated failure to comply with multiple court orders, we agree with the court's conclusion that he engaged in willful and contumacious conduct.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike an answer when repeated, unexplained violations of discovery orders support an inference of willful and contumacious conduct.

Cooper v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth. · filed 2020-09-29

The court properly granted plaintiff's motion to strike the MTA defendants' answer ( see CPLR 3126). The MTA defendants violated seven orders over the course of three years requiring the deposition of their witness to be held and offered no excuse for their repeated failure to comply. Such pattern of noncompliance gave rise to an inference of willful and contumacious conduct ( see Rodriguez v United Bronx Parents, Inc ., 70 AD3d 492 [1st Dept 2010]; Reidel v Ryder TRS, Inc ., 13 AD3d 170 [1st Dept 2004]).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading when a party’s failure to comply with discovery is willful and contumacious; the choice of penalty rests in the motion court’s discretion.

Matter of Pfeffer · filed 2020-10-07

While proceedings should be resolved on the merits when possible, a court may strike a pleading upon a clear showing that a party's failure to comply with discovery was the result of willful and contumacious conduct ( see Marino v Armogan , 179 AD3d 664). 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). Here, Pfeffer refused to participate in discovery. Pfeffer's lack of cooperation was willful and contumacious, and thus, the Surrogate's Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of Billauer's motion which was to strike his petition ( see Marino v Armogan , 179 AD3d 664; Corex-SPA v Janel Group of N.Y., Inc. , 156 AD3d at 601).

Section 3126(3) permits striking a pleading for a discovery failure only upon a clear showing that the failure was willful, contumacious or in bad faith.

Sovera Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · filed 2020-11-13(3)

Here, defendant could not show that plaintiff had failed to comply with a court order, as no such order had ever been entered, and defendant further did not make a clear showing that the alleged failure of plaintiff to comply with defendant's discovery demands and the parties' stipulation was willful, contumacious or in bad faith.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading when repeated failures to provide discovery, without an adequate excuse, support an inference of willful and contumacious conduct.

Allstar Electronics, Inc. v. DeLuca · filed 2020-11-25

Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the separate motions of the SID defendants and the Westerman defendants pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

Section 3126 permits striking a pleading for failure to disclose only when the movant shows the failure was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.

Vargas v. Sarkar · filed 2020-12-21

With respect to Liang's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §3126, it has been held that, "The drastic sanction of striking pleadings is only justified when the moving party shows conclusively that the failure to disclose was willful, contumacious or in bad faith, a burden born by the movant... " (Christian v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 135 [l51 Dept. 2000]). The court finds that Liang has failed to show that plaintiffs conduct in failing to appear for IMEs was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a complaint when a plaintiff repeatedly fails to comply with discovery orders without an explanation.

Moore v. Nizam · filed 2021-03-30

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in striking the complaint and dismissing the action as against the moving defendants. Plaintiff failed to explain why he did not comply with six discovery orders issued between 2018 and 2019 directing him to serve a supplemental individualized bill of particulars as to Dr. Ingram ( see generally CPLR 3126; Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc. , 11 NY3d 843, 845 [2008]; Henderson-Jones v City of New York , 87 AD3d 498, 504-505 [1st Dept 2011]).

CPLR 3126 permits striking a pleading for failure to comply with a discovery order only when the moving party conclusively demonstrates that the nondisclosure was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.

Youwanes v. Steinbrech · filed 2021-04-08

Further, "it is well settled that the drastic remedy of striking a party's pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with a discovery order . . . is appropriate only where the moving party conclusively demonstrates that the non-disclosure was willful, contumacious or due to bad faith" ( McGilvery v New York City Tr. Auth. , 213 AD2d 322, 324 [1st Dept 1995]). Even if the proffered excuse is less than compelling, there is a strong preference in our law that matters be decided on their merits (see Catarine v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 290 AD2d 213, 215 [1st Dept 2002]). Supreme Court correctly found that defendants fail to demonstrate that an order of dismissal or preclusion was warranted by the record.

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading when a party's failure to comply with discovery demands or orders is clearly willful and contumacious.

Henry v. Atlantis Rehabilitation & Residential Healthcare Facility, LLC · filed 2021-05-26(3)

The drastic remedy of striking a pleading is appropriate when there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders was willful and contumacious ( see CPLR 3126[3]; Gelin v New York City Tr. Auth. , 189 AD3d at 792-793).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike pleadings when a party willfully and contumaciously fails to meaningfully comply with discovery obligations.

OU v. Iseev · filed 2021-06-01

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered on or about October 30, 2019, which granted defendant's motion for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 striking the complaint and third-party answer in the first action for failure to comply with discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs. ... The motion court providently exercised its discretion in striking the complaint and third-party answer in the first action. The record demonstrates that plaintiff and third-party defendant Shchukin willfully and contumaciously failed to meaningfully comply with their discovery obligations ( see e.g. SW Prods., Inc. v CBGB Festival, LLC , 172 AD3d 593 [1st Dept 2019]; Eli Cabinetry, Inc. v P.C. Consulting Mgt. Corp. , 158 AD3d 482 [1st Dept 2018]).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading when a party refuses to obey a disclosure order or wilfully fails to disclose information that should have been disclosed.

Matter of Konstantinos Apostolidis · filed 2021-04-28(3)

The Surrogate's Court providently exercised its discretion in directing dismissal of the petition insofar as asserted by Palmieri pursuant to CPLR 3126. ... A court may strike a pleading as a sanction 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" (CPLR 3126[3]; see Wolf v Flowers , 122 AD3d 728, 728).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a party’s answer and deem allegations admitted for willful, repeated failure to comply with discovery orders when the party offers no reasonable excuse.

Prattico v. City of Rochester · filed 2021-08-26

Here, plaintiff established on his motion that defendants repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, that such failure was willful, contumacious and in bad faith, and that plaintiff was precluded by that failure from establishing a prima facie case on his malicious prosecution cause of action ( cf. McFadden v Oneida, Ltd. , 93 AD3d 1309, 1311 [4th Dept 2012]). ... Consequently, we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion by striking defendants' answer and deeming the allegations in the malicious prosecution cause of action admitted.

CPLR 3126(3) permits dismissal for discovery violations only upon a clear showing of willful and contumacious conduct.

Ambroise v. Palmana Realty Corp. · filed 2021-09-22(3)

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126, since there was no showing that the plaintiff willfully and contumaciously failed to adequately respond to discovery demands or to comply with court orders for disclosure ( see Ramirez v Reyes , 171 AD3d 1114, 1115-1116).

CPLR 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading for failure to comply with disclosure, but doing so requires a clear showing of willful and contumacious conduct.

Amos v. Southampton Hosp. · filed 2021-10-27(3)

"While actions should be resolved on the merits when possible, a court may strike [a pleading] upon a clear showing that [a party's] failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful and contumacious conduct" ( Almonte v Pichardo , 105 AD3d 687, 688; see Honghui Kuang v MetLife , 159 AD3d at 881). ... Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were to strike the hospital's answer and to impose monetary sanctions based on the hospital's alleged failure to comply with discovery demands and prior court orders ( see Amos v Southampton Hosp. , 131 AD3d 906, [*2]908).

CPLR 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading for repeated violations of discovery orders without a reasonable excuse.

Sansone v. Syracuse Univ. · filed 2022-02-09(3)

Under these circumstances, it was a provident exercise of the court's discretion to grant that branch of the motion of the defendant Syracuse University which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint.

CPLR 3126 permits striking a complaint for willful and contumacious refusal to comply with discovery orders.

Diamond v. WWP Off., LLC · filed 2022-02-10

Defendants failed to show that plaintiff willfully and contumaciously refused to comply with discovery orders which warranted striking the complaint ( see CPLR 3126; see Watson v City of New York, 157 AD3d 510, 514 [1st Dept 2018]).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading for discovery misconduct only when the moving party conclusively shows bad faith or willful, contumacious conduct.

Collyer v. LaVigne · filed 2022-02-17

"The drastic remedy of striking a pleading is appropriate only where the moving party conclusively demonstrates bad faith or willful, contumacious [*3]conduct by the party who fails to comply with disclosure or spoliates evidence" ( Dyer v City of Albany , 121 AD3d 1238, 1238 [2014] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see CPLR 3126; Mesiti v Weiss , 178 AD3d 1332, 1334 [2019]). ... As such, the record does not clearly support an inference that the insurance company's conduct was willful and contumacious ( see Henry v Datson , 140 AD3d 1120, 1122 [2016]; compare Brandi v Chan , 151 AD2d 853, 854 [1989], appeal dismissed 75 NY2d 789 [1990]), and thus Supreme Court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion to strike the insurance company's answer and grant a default judgment.

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a party’s answer and enter judgment on liability when repeated failures to comply with discovery demands and an order show willful and contumacious conduct.

Sanabria v. NYSARC, Inc. · filed 2022-04-06(3)

Here, in light of the defendants' repeated failure to fully comply with the plaintiff's proper discovery demands and the Supreme Court's conditional order dated February 13, 2019, there was a clear showing that the defendants engaged in willful and contumacious conduct. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants' answer and for judgment in the plaintiff's favor and against the defendants on the issue of liability ( see Henry v Atlantis Rehabilitation & Residential Healthcare Facility, LLC , 194 AD3d 1021; Ritornato v Ritornato , 186 AD3d 1422, 1424; Ahmed v Ahmed , 175 AD3d 1363, 1364-1365; Pirro Group, LLC v One Point St., Inc. , 71 AD3d 654).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading for discovery misconduct, but incomplete responses need not warrant that sanction when the conduct is not willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.

Hillside Place, LLC v. Shahid · filed 2022-04-29(3)

As it was undisputed that landlord did not completely fail to provide responses to the discovery demands, the Civil Court was within its discretion to find that landlord's responses did not constitute "willful, contumacious, or bad faith conduct" which would warrant the striking of landlord's petition ( Simpson v City of New York , 10 AD3d 601, 603 [2004]; see McArthur v New York City Hous. Auth ., 48 AD3d 431, 431 [2008]; Miller v Duffy , 126 AD2d 527 [1987]).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a complaint when repeated violations of discovery orders support an inference of willful and contumacious conduct.

Khan v. 40 Wall Ltd. Partnership · filed 2022-05-11

Here, the plaintiff violated eight separate discovery orders over a period of approximately five years, a pattern which supports an inference that her behavior was willful and contumacious ( see Bellevue v Gustav , 186 AD3d 547, 548). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading when a party's failure to comply with discovery demands or orders is willful and contumacious.

Pfeiffer v. Shouela · filed 2022-06-22(3)

The drastic remedy of striking a pleading is appropriate when there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders was willful and contumacious ( see id. at § 3126[3]; Henry v Atlantis Rehabilitation & Residential Healthcare Facility, LLC , 194 AD3d at 1022; Matter of Apostolidis , 193 AD3d 1039, 1040). ... Here, the willful and contumacious character of the defendant's conduct can be inferred from his failure to comply with multiple court orders directing disclosure and his failure to attend a compliance conference ( see Matter of Apostolidis , 193 AD3d at 1040; Cobo v Pennwalt Corp. Stokes Div. , 185 AD3d at 652).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading when repeated failures to provide discovery, without an adequate excuse, show willful and contumacious conduct.

Gorbatov v. Tsirelman · filed 2022-06-22(3)

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting those branches of the defendants' motions which were to strike the complaint upon finding, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' repeated disregard of the defendants' demands for discovery and bills of particulars, the plaintiffs' failure to provide responses to the demands despite having participated in discovery conferences wherein they stipulated to provide such responses, the plaintiffs' inadequate responses when they did respond, and the absence of an adequate excuse for these failures constituted willful and contumacious behavior ( see Sparakis v Gozzer Corp. , 177 AD3d 1011, 1012-1013; Williams v Suttle , 168 AD3d 792, 793-794).

Section 3126 permits striking a pleading for failure to provide court-ordered discovery only when there is a clear showing that the failure was willful and contumacious.

G & H Restoration, Inc. v. Johnson · filed 2022-06-22

Under the circumstances of this case, there was no clear showing that the defendants' failure to produce the demanded discovery was willful and contumacious ( see CPLR 3126). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to strike the defendants' answer ( see Nunez v Laidlaw , 150 AD3d at 1126; Maffai v County of Suffolk , 36 AD3d at 766).

CPLR 3126 gives courts discretion over discovery sanctions, but striking a pleading or precluding evidence requires a clearly willful and contumacious failure to comply with discovery demands or orders.

Irving v. Four Seasons Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr. · filed 2021-11-17

Although the Supreme Court has broad discretion to determine the nature and degree of a sanction to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 ( see Sweet Constructors, LLC v Wallkill Med. Dev., LLC , 188 AD3d 1279, 1280; Palmieri v Piano Exch., Inc. , 124 AD3d 611, 612), "the drastic remedy of striking a pleading or even precluding evidence . . . should not be imposed unless the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders is clearly willful and contumacious" ( Palmieri v Piano Exch., Inc. , 124 AD3d at 612; see Sweet Constructors, LLC v Wallkill Med. Dev., LLC , 188 AD3d at 1280). Here, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant's conduct was willful and contumacious ( see De Leo v State-Whitehall Co. , 126 AD3d 750, 752; Scorzari v Pezza , 111 AD3d 916, 917).

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading when repeated violations of discovery orders, without a reasonable excuse, support an inference of willful and contumacious conduct.

Sheikh v. Poplardo · filed 2022-07-27(3)

Here, the plaintiff's repeated failure to appear for a deposition, in violation of multiple Supreme Court orders, coupled with his failure to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for that failure, supports an inference that his conduct was willful and contumacious ( see Apladenaki v Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc. , 117 AD3d 976, 977; Orgel v Stewart Tit. Ins. Co. , 91 AD3d 922, 924). Under these circumstances, it was a provident exercise of the court's discretion to grant the defendant's [*2]motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) to strike the complaint.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading for discovery violations when the record clearly shows willful and contumacious conduct.

Malek v. Malek · filed 2022-08-24(3)

Here, the record does not establish a clear showing of willfulness and contumacious conduct necessary to justify the striking of the defendants' answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 ( see Amos v Southampton Hosp. , 198 AD3d 947, 948; Burrell v Baptista , 180 AD3d 988, 988; Rector v City of New York , 174 AD3d 660, 661).

Section 3126 does not justify striking a pleading for delayed disclosure without a clear showing that the failure to comply was willful and contumacious.

Steele v. Samaritan Found., Inc. · filed 2022-09-21

Here, nothing in the record supports a conclusion that the plaintiff's delay in providing the trial authorizations was the result of willful and contumacious conduct ( see Palmieri v Piano Exch., Inc. , 124 AD3d 611, 612; Zakhidov v Boulevard Tenants Corp. , 96 AD3d 737, 738-739). Moreover, the plaintiff provided the authorizations to the defendants, albeit tardily, in advance of trial ( see Nunez v Laidlaw , 150 AD3d 1124, 1126; Palmieri v Piano Exch., Inc. , 124 AD3d at 612; Piper-Rader v Muslim , 99 AD3d 686, 686-688). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the plaintiff's complaint.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to conditionally strike an answer when a party repeatedly fails to obey deposition orders without a reasonable excuse.

Guardado v. K.B.G. Commercial, Inc. · filed 2022-10-12

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in conditionally granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the KBG defendants' answer if Prescott did not appear for a deposition ( see Almonte v Pichardo , 105 AD3d 687; Maignan v Nahar , 37 AD3d 557). The willful and contumacious character of the KBG defendants' actions can be inferred from their repeated failure to comply with orders directing Prescott to appear for a deposition, and the absence of any excuse offered for such failures ( see Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Jackson , 192 AD3d at 816; Maignan v Nahar , 37 AD3d at 557).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a complaint when repeated, unexcused failures to comply with discovery demands and orders support an inference of willful and contumacious conduct.

Ashfaq v. Ice Cream Depot Corp. · filed 2022-10-12

Here, the willful and contumacious nature of the plaintiffs' conduct may properly be inferred from their repeated failures, without a reasonable excuse, to comply with the defendants' discovery demands, the order dated June 24, 2016, and prior so-ordered stipulations ( see Von Maack v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. , 195 AD3d at 771; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Branker , 177 AD3d at 958). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the ICD defendants' motion, joined by the Ivanditto defendants and Lock, which was to strike the amended complaint.

CPLR 3126(3) permits striking an answer for discovery noncompliance, but the court may deny that sanction when there is no disclosure order and no showing of clearly wilful and contumacious conduct.

Rivera v. Caban · filed 2023-03-15(3)

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants' answer or, in the alternative, to preclude the defendants from offering certain evidence at trial, for failure to comply with discovery demands. There was no court order requiring disclosure ( see CPLR 3126[3]; Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Beckerman , 105 AD3d 895, 896), and the plaintiffs otherwise failed to demonstrate that the defendants' failure to comply with the discovery demands was "clearly wilful and contumacious" ( Johnson v Ortiz Transp., LLC , 205 AD3d 699, 700 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

A court may strike pleadings under CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with a disclosure order upon a clear showing of willful and contumacious conduct.

Perez v. Tedesco · filed 2023-03-29

"While actions should be resolved on the merits when possible, a court may strike [pleadings] upon a clear showing that the defendant's failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful and contumacious conduct" ( Almonte v Pichardo , 105 AD3d 687, 688). ... The Supreme Court correctly determined that Perez failed to make a clear showing that the defendants' conduct was willful or contumacious ( see Dank v Sears Holding Mgt. Corp. , 69 AD3d 557, 557; Prappas v Papadatos , 38 AD3d 871, 872).

Section 3126 leaves the decision whether to strike an answer as a discovery sanction to the court's discretion.

Kuyenova v. R&M Supermarket · filed 2023-04-26

Moreover, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by, in effect, denying the plaintiff's cross-motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants' answer ( see id. § 3126[1], [2]; Pegasus Aviation I, Inc v Varig Logistica S.A. , 26 NY3d 543, 551; Phelps-Vachier v Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. , 207 AD3d 582, 584).

Section 3126(3) permits striking a pleading for discovery noncompliance only upon a clear showing that the failure was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.

Harms v. TLC Health Network · filed 2023-04-28(3)

We reject plaintiff's contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to strike defendants' answer for failure to comply with the notice to produce. Plaintiff did not establish that defendants engaged in any "willful, contumacious, or . . . bad faith" noncompliance with the notice to produce ( Perry , 64 AD3d at 1226; see Pezzino , 175 AD3d at 841-842).

CPLR 3126(3) permits a court to strike a party's answer for repeatedly disobeying orders to appear for a deposition.

Pigott v. J.C. Happy Garden Corp. · filed 2023-05-02(3)

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in striking East 165 Realty's answer ( see CPLR 3126[3]; see also Arts4All, Ltd. v Hancock , 54 AD3d 286, 286-287 [1st Dept 2008], affd 12 NY3d 846 [2009], cert denied 559 US 905 [2010]). East 165 Realty's disobedience of a series of court orders directing it to appear for a deposition is precisely the type of dilatory and obstructive, and thus contumacious, conduct warranting the striking of its answer ( see Kutner v Feiden, Dweck & Sladkus , 223 AD2d 488, 489 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 802 [1996]).

CPLR 3126 permits a court to deny a request to strike an answer when the discovery response was reasonable and any failure to comply was not willful and contumacious.

Price v. BFP Tower C Co., LLC · filed 2023-05-03

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike the American Express defendants' answers for failure to adequately comply with the plaintiffs' demand that they produce a witness for a deposition. The court correctly determined that the American Express defendants' production of a witness who responded to the accident was reasonable, and that any failure by the American Express defendants to comply with the plaintiffs' demand was not willful and contumacious ( see Abdourahamane v Public Stor. Inst. Fund III , 190 AD3d 666, 667).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike defendants' answers for dilatory discovery conduct, including violations of discovery orders.

Lynx Capital Partners of NJ, LLC v. Bayes Capital LLC · filed 2023-06-22

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in striking defendants' answers. It properly concluded that defendants' behavior leading up to their document production on January 7, 2022 was dilatory.

CPLR 3126 permits dismissal when repeated discovery failures over an extended period, without an adequate excuse, support an inference of willful and contumacious conduct.

Morales v. Valeo · filed 2023-07-19

However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants' unopposed motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3042 and 3126 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them by Morales.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading when the moving party conclusively shows that nondisclosure was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.

Holdco V LLC v. Puls · filed 2023-07-31

It is well settled that the drastic remedy of striking a party's pleading, pursuant to CPLR 3126, is appropriate only where the moving party conclusively demonstrates that the non-disclosure was willful, contumacious, or due to bad faith ( McGilvery v New York City Transit Auth ., 213 AD2d 322, 324 [1st Dept 1995] citing, Remuneration Planning & Services Corp. v Berg & Brown, Inc., 151 AD2d 268, 269). ... Here, Puls' willful conduct is evidenced through his failure, over an extended period of time, to comply with this court's discovery directives.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike an answer when repeated failure to comply with discovery orders supports an inference of willful and contumacious conduct.

1591 Second Ave. LLC v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth. · filed 2023-10-03

On remittal ( see 1591 Second Ave. LLC v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. , 202 AD3d 582, 584 [1st Dept 2022]), Supreme Court correctly determined that the two affidavits submitted by defendants did not meet the standard set forth in Jackson v City of New York (185 AD2d 768 [1st Dept 1992]) and, upon the determination, providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' answer (CPLR 3126). ... Defendants' submission of such patently insufficient affidavits, along with their unexplained failure to comply with six prior court orders directing the submission of a Jackson affidavit, the last of which warned of sanctions, during a three-year period, permitted an inference of willful and contumacious conduct, justifying, under the circumstances, the drastic remedy of striking their answer ( see McHugh v City of New York , 150 AD3d 561, 562 [1st Dept 2017]; Henderson-Jones v City of New York , 87 AD3d 498, 504 [1st Dept 2011]).

Section 3126 leaves the choice of discovery sanction to the trial court’s discretion; striking an answer or entering a default judgment requires a showing of willful, contumacious, or bad-faith noncompliance.

McGirr v. Zurbrick · filed 2023-06-30

Plaintiff's alternative request for relief seeks, in essence, a default judgment, which is an equally inappropriate sanction for a discovery violation absent the requisite showing of willfulness, contumaciousness, or bad faith ( see O'Connor v Root , 284 AD2d 979, 979 [4th Dept 2001]; Monaco v Camie-Campbell, Inc. , 256 AD2d 1214, 1215 [4th Dept 1998], lv dismissed in part & denied in part 93 NY2d 887 [1999]). Here, while the court recognized that defendant had no excuse for the discovery violation, it did not abuse its discretion in determining that the striking of defendant's answer or awarding plaintiff a default judgment was not appropriate ( see Lobello , 152 AD3d at 1207; O'Connor , 284 AD2d at 979; see also Finocchi , 141 AD3d at 1093).

CPLR 3126 requires a clear showing of a pattern of willful or contumacious conduct to justify striking a defendant's answer.

Farmer v. Gazebo Contr., Inc. · filed 2023-07-19

Nevertheless, the plaintiff failed to establish the clear showing of a pattern of willfulness or contumacious conduct necessary to justify the striking of either defendants' answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 ( see Burrell v Baptista , 180 AD3d 988; Tanriverdi v United Skates of Am., Inc. , 164 AD3d 858, 860).

Section 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading when repeated failure to comply with discovery demands and an order shows willful and contumacious conduct.

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v. Nehorayoff · filed 2024-01-10

Here, the defendants' willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from their repeated failures to comply with the plaintiff's discovery demands, their failure to comply with the order directing them to comply with those discovery demands within 20 days, their failure to timely oppose either of the plaintiff's motions to strike their amended answer, and their failure to offer any excuse for their noncompliance ( see C.K. v City of New York , 216 AD3d at 756-757; L.K. v City of [*2]New York , 210 AD3d at 754; Montgomery v City of New York , 296 AD2d 386, 386-387).

CPLR 3126 does not require a court to strike pleadings as the only remedy for discovery misconduct.

Lis v. Lancaster · filed 2024-03-28

The motion court here considered a CPLR 3126 motion to strike based on alleged willfully withheld discovery/lack of candor in connection with the nondisclosure of certain documents, and found Lancaster's arguments in opposition "unavailing." ... Contrary to plaintiff's argument, there is no basis for finding that the only proper remedy for the frivolous conduct is the drastic remedy of striking the pleadings.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading when a party willfully disobeys discovery orders without a reasonable excuse.

Tantaros v. Krechmer · filed 2024-03-28

Accordingly, since plaintiff's failure to comply with three court orders was willful and contumacious and she has not advanced a reasonable justification, sanctions are warranted.

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a party's pleading for disobeying discovery orders or willfully withholding required disclosure.

Board of Mgrs. of the Hampton House Condominium v. IPark U, Inc. · filed 2024-04-08(3)

CPLR 3126(3) authorizes a court to strike pleadings where a party "refused to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed." ... Here, Defendant has failed to provide the discovery ordered by the May 13, 2023 Preliminary Conference Order (NYSCEF Doc. 24), the September 20, 2023 Compliance Conference Order (NYSCEF Doc. 27) and the Decision and Order dated November 3, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. 30), and failed to respond to no less than three good faith letters sent by Plaintiffs counsel. In light of the foregoing, Defendant is held in default, and its answer is stricken.

Section 3126(3) permits a court to strike a pleading for discovery violations, but striking a pleading or precluding evidence requires a clear showing that failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious.

Preferred Westchester Props., Inc. v. Fay Realty, LLC · filed 2024-04-10(3)

Although striking a pleading is a permissible remedy for discovery violations ( see CPLR 3126[3]; Ewa v City of New York , 186 AD3d at 1196), "[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 908, 910 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Sweet Constructors, LLC v Wallkill Med. Dev., LLC , 188 AD3d 1279, 1280).

Section 3126 permits striking a pleading for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, but striking is inapplicable when the party has provided generally appropriate responses.

Cruz v. City of New York · filed 2024-04-30

To that end, 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 the party'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]). But where, as here, a party has provided generally appropriate responses to requested discovery, the striking of a pleading is inapplicable.

CPLR 3126 permits a court to strike a pleading for a discovery failure, but that drastic remedy requires a clear showing of willful and contumacious noncompliance.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Castillo · filed 2024-05-08

The Supreme Court properly denied Windward's cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint or, in the alternative, to compel the plaintiff to comply with certain discovery demands. ... Here, Windward failed to establish that the plaintiff's detailed responses to Windward's notice for discovery and inspection, and the corresponding documents produced in conjunction with those responses, amounted to a willful or contumacious failure to comply with discovery demands.