Case Name: Rachel Tantaro, Appellant, v. All My Children, Inc., Doing Business as Fifth Avenue Beauty, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-11-17
Citations: 133 A.D.3d 491
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rachel Tantaro, Appellant, v All My Children, Inc., Doing Business as Fifth Avenue Beauty, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 491–491

Head Matter:
Rachel Tantaro, Appellant, v All My Children, Inc., Doing Business as Fifth Avenue Beauty, et al., Respondents.
[19 NYS3d 159]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered January 6, 2014, which granted plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' answer for failing to comply with discovery to the extent of marking the parties' deposition dates as final, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff failed to establish that defendants' alleged failure to comply with disclosure obligations was willful, contumacious or in bad faith (see Perez v New York City Tr. Auth., 73 AD3d 529 [2010]). Given the fact that the record demonstrates that the delays in discovery were caused by both parties, it cannot be said that Supreme Court abused its discretion in determining that striking defendants' answer was inappropriate and instead granting plaintiff's motion to strike to the extent of imposing the lesser sanction of marking the deposition dates as final (see DaimlerChrysler Ins. Co. v Seck, 82 AD3d 581 [1st Dept 2011]; Islar v New York City Bd. of Educ., 64 AD3d 405 [1st Dept 2009]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, ManzanetDaniels and Kapnick, JJ.