Case Name: Panathy Hill, Appellant, v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1998-12-01
Citations: 256 A.D.2d 31
Docket Number: 
Parties: Panathy Hill, Appellant, v Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 256
Pages: 31–31

Head Matter:
Panathy Hill, Appellant, v Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
[680 NYS2d 848]

Opinion:
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered May 28, 1998, which, after an evidentiary hearing, denied plaintiff's motion to strike the answer of defendants-respondents Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives and Insignia Financial Group, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In ruling upon plaintiff's motion to strike defendants-respondents' pleadings, the motion court properly inquired, not merely as to whether there had been spoliation of evidence, but also as to whether defendants-respondents' failure to comply with discovery orders had been willful, contumacious, or effected in bad faith (see, Orlando v Arcade Cleaning Corp., 253 AD2d 362; cf., Squitieri v City of New York, 248 AD2d 201). The court's conclusion that plaintiff had not met her burden as movant (see, Forman v Jamesway Corp., 175 AD2d 514, 515) to demonstrate defendants-respondents' willful noncompliance with their discovery obligations, and accordingly had not demonstrated her right to the drastic relief requested, did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Dauria v City of New York, 127 AD2d 459, 460). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.