Case law related to the failure of a party to comply with the Court ordered discovery in a case:
“Generally, the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 against a party who refuses to comply with court-ordered discovery is a matter within the discretion of the court. A determination to impose sanctions for conduct which frustrates the disclosure scheme of the CPLR should not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion” (Duncan v Hebb, 47 AD3d 871, 871 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Savin v Brooklyn Mar. Park Dev. Corp., 61 AD3d 954). Although actions should be resolved on the merits whenever possible, where the conduct of the resisting party is shown to be willful and contumacious, the striking of a pleading is warranted (see Brown v Astoria Fed. Sav., 51 AD3d 961, 962; Martin v City of New York, 46 AD3d 635; Maiorino v City of New York, 39 AD3d 601). Willful and contumacious conduct may be inferred from a party’s repeated failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, coupled with inadequate explanations for the failures to comply (see Matone v Sycamore Realty Corp., 87 AD3d 1113; Duncan v Hebb, 47 AD3d at 871; Maiorino v City of New York, 39 AD3d at 602).
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING: Information herein and is not intended to be, legal advice. This sample legal document is provided as part of a free educational service by Zachary Irtaza Riyaz, Esq., attorney at law in the State of New York (Westhampton – Tel. 516-234-0348), for reference only. Statutes and codes such as Domestic Relations Law (DRL)are frequently amended and may affect the validity of the above legal document and no representation is made that the above sample is going to be enforceable in the future. Updated statutes and codes may be available at the New York State Legislature Website. No statute or sample legal document should be relied on without understanding controlling case law which may further interpret it. AN ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED FOR LEGAL ADVICE.