Case ID: ad3d_144/html/0496-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nuno Martins, Respondent, v 511 Properties, LLC, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
    [40 NYS3d 761]—
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered March 7, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant 511 Properties, LLC’s motion to renew plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, the motion to renew granted, the answer reinstated and defendant directed to pay plaintiff discovery sanctions in the amount of $2,500.

The new facts offered by defendant provide a basis for renewal of plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions (CPLR 2221 [e]). While defendant certainly should have been more attentive, the missing discovery was ultimately provided by November of 2015. Before that time, neither party had provided any discovery by as late as May 2015, defendant had substituted new counsel and defendant had some personnel changes within its own organization. Under these circumstances, while a discovery sanction in the form of a fine in the amount indicated herein was warranted, the level of willfulness required for the striking of the answer was not present.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Gische, JJ.