Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Oasis Sportswear, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent v. Patricia Rego

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


May 10, 2012

OASIS SPORTSWEAR, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
PATRICIA REGO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. PATRICIA REGO, ET AL., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, JOSEPH TRACHTMAN, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Oasis Sportswear, Inc. v Rego

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 10, 2012

Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, Roman, JJ.

[And Another Action]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 16, 2011, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' answer and counterclaims and ordered the case to inquest, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given that defendants had been ordered on three prior occasions to produce certain documents, and had been expressly warned that failure to do so again would result in the striking of their pleadings, the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in striking the pleadings, under CPLR 3126, when defendants again failed to produce the requested records (De Socio v 136 E. 56th St. Owners, Inc., 74 AD3d 606 [2010]). We note that the repeated failure of defendants to produce, despite express orders to do so, amply demonstrates willfulness and the lack of any reasonable excuse for such failure. Moreover, that the documents were relevant to plaintiff's defense to certain counterclaims constitutes prejudice sufficient to warrant the particular sanction imposed. To the extent defendants failed to comply with a conditional order of preclusion, they failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse or a meritorious defense (see Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 10, 2012

CLERK

20120510

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.