Court Opinion

ID: 9779633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:29:31.309705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:37.158650
License: Public Domain

Ciparick, J. (dissenting).
As the majority notes, CPLR 3042 and 3126 confer broad discretion on trial courts to craft discovery sanctions. A court “may” issue a final or conditional order “as is just” if a party “willfully fails to provide particulars which the court finds ought to have been provided” (CPLR 3042 [d]; see also CPLR 3126).
Neither Supreme Court nor the Appellate Division found that the behavior of plaintiffs counsel was sufficiently egregious to merit the harsh sanction of preclusion. To the contrary, Supreme Court stated that the conduct “was dilatory but not intentioned and . . . [did] not warrant the extreme measure of precluding” counsel from presenting plaintiffs case. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding “no evidence that plaintiffs inaction was willful, contumacious, or the result of bad faith” (Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 61 AD3d 599, 600 [1st Dept 2009]). Thus, although the CPLR makes willfulness a prerequisite for preclusion, the majority here is imposing the sanction where there is an affirmed finding that Gibbs’ behavior was not willful.
Because of this affirmed factual finding, this case is easily distinguishable from Fiore v Galang (64 NY2d 999 [1985]), Smith *84v Lefrak Org. (60 NY2d 828 [1983]), Amodeo v Radler (59 NY2d 1001 [1983]), and other cases cited by the majority. These cases establish that, as the majority emphasizes, a defaulting party must establish reasonable excuse for the delay and provide an affidavit of merit (see Fiore, 64 NY2d at 1000, affg 105 AD2d 970 [3d Dept 1984]). They do not alter the CPLR’s willfulness requirement, nor do they permit us to make a finding of willfulness and apply a sanction expressly rejected by the courts below. I would therefore affirm the Appellate Division’s order.
Judges Read, Smith and Pigott concur with Judge Graffeo; Judge Ciparick dissents and votes to affirm in a separate opinion in which Chief Judge Lippman and Judge Jones concur. Order reversed, etc.