Case Name: Linda Rollieson et al., Plaintiffs, and I.T., Appellant, v. Hollywood Entertainment Corporation, Doing Business as Hollywood Video Superstores, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2007-03-06
Citations: 38 A.D.3d 238
Docket Number: 
Parties: Linda Rollieson et al., Plaintiffs, and I.T., Appellant, v Hollywood Entertainment Corporation, Doing Business as Hollywood Video Superstores, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 238–238

Head Matter:
Linda Rollieson et al., Plaintiffs, and I.T., Appellant, v Hollywood Entertainment Corporation, Doing Business as Hollywood Video Superstores, et al., Respondents.
[830 NYS2d 512]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered April 19, 2006, which granted defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff I.T.'s claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
. I.T.'s willful and contumacious conduct in obstructing and delaying the progress of disclosure may be inferred from her failure to appear for court-ordered depositions on four separate occasions (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]). Under the circumstances, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion after I.T. failed to appear for a deposition on the agreed-upon date, pursuant to a "so ordered" stipulation that had indicated dismissal as the consequence of such failure (see Woolard v Suffolk County Water Auth., 16 AD3d 582 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.