Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's answer since plaintiff established that defendant failed to comply with court orders directing the production of witnesses with sufficient knowledge of the relevant circumstances and directing the payment of a $600 penalty and that such noncompliance, viewed cumulatively, was willful and contumacious and in bad faith (see, Pimental v City of New York,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
LANTIGUA v. CITY OF NEW YORK
254 A.D.2d 218 (1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 575
Consuelo Lantigua, Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
October 27, 1998
October 27, 1998
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
