Court Opinion

ID: 9962521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:09:47.060064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.972423
License: Public Domain

Suero-Che v 1407 Broadway, LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31357(U)
                     April 18, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 150825/2020
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 05:00 PM                                                                     INDEX NO. 150825/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 14
            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
             AUDIS M. SUERO-CHE,                                                                   INDEX NO.         150825/2020

                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                   MOTION DATE        04/15/2024
                                                -v-
                                                                                                   MOTION SEQ. NO.        003
             1407 BROADWAY, LLC,1407 BROADWAY REAL
             ESTATE, LLC,SRI ELEVEN 1407 BROADWAY
             OPERATORS, LLC,SOLIL MANAGEMENT, LLC,THE
             ESTATE OF SOL GOLDMAN, SHORENSTEIN                                                     DECISION + ORDER ON
             PROPERTIES, LLC,THE SWEET CONSTRUCTION                                                       MOTION
             GROUP, LTD, HENICK LANE INCORPORATED,
             ARSENAL SCAFFOLD INC.,

                                                         Defendant.
            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

             THE SWEET CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LTD                                                                 Third-Party
                                                                                                         Index No. 595727/2020
                                                          Plaintiff,

                                                 -against-

             ARSENAL SCAFFOLD INC.

                                                          Defendant.
             --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH:

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 134, 135, 136, 137,
            138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153
            were read on this motion to/for                            STRIKE PLEADINGS                        .

                      The motion by plaintiff to strike defendants’ answers is granted in part and denied in part.

            Background

                      In this action for personal injury, plaintiff claims he was struck by falling debris while

            working at a construction site. Plaintiff alleges he was on the 12th floor of a building located at

            1407 Broadway in Manhattan when he was hit by the debris, resulting in serious injuries to his

             150825/2020 SUERO-CHE, AUDIS M. vs. 1407 BROADWAY, LLC                                                    Page 1 of 8
             Motion No. 003

                                                                           1 of 8
[* 1]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 05:00 PM                                                                 INDEX NO. 150825/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156                                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

            upper back and spine. Plaintiff subsequently filed this action for negligence and Labor Law §

            200, § 240, § 241, and § 241 (a) violations.

                      During the ongoing litigation process, the parties tried repeatedly to schedule depositions

            of the defendants. The parties agreed to conduct depositions in caption order, and upon the near

            completion of plaintiff’s deposition, a Status Conference Order directed the parties to complete

            defendants’ depositions by September 30, 2022. No depositions of the defendants went forward.

            Following this, a second Status Conference Order dated December 2, 2022, directed that all

            defendants to appear for a deposition by March 15, 2023. Again, no depositions were held.1 The

            Court then issued a third Order directing 1407 Broadway LLC, SRI Eleven 1407 Broadway

            Operators, LLC, Solil Management LLC, The Estate Of Sol Goldman, Shorenstein Properties,

            LLC, The Sweet Construction Group Ltd. (“1407 Defendants”) to appear for a deposition on July

            12, 2023, Henick Lane Incorporated (“Henick”) to appear for a deposition on July 19, 2023, and

            Arsenal Scaffold Inc. (“Arsenal”) to appear for a deposition on August 2, 2023. Plaintiff

            contends it sent a good faith email to the defendants to confirm the depositions but received no

            response. A second good faith email received a response only from Arsenal, who was not ready

            to proceed as its counsel was undergoing dissolution of its firm. Finally, a third good faith email

            resulted in defendants refusing to proceed with depositions because a mediation was scheduled

            on August 10, 2023.

                      Two days before the scheduled mediation, the Court issued a fourth Order directing new

            deposition dates for December 2023. Subsequently, 1407 Defendants cancelled the August

            mediation. Plaintiff sent good faith emails to all of the defendants to confirm the upcoming

            December depositions, but Arsenal was the only one to respond, suggesting that 1407

            1
              In each of these instances, the facts do not clarify whether or not depositions were scheduled and the parties failed
            to appear or if no scheduling of depositions ever occurred.
                150825/2020 SUERO-CHE, AUDIS M. vs. 1407 BROADWAY, LLC                                             Page 2 of 8
                Motion No. 003

                                                                   2 of 8
[* 2]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 05:00 PM                                               INDEX NO. 150825/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

            Defendants’ deposition be moved by two days to December 12th instead of December 10th.

            1407 Defendants did not respond to this email chain and instead cancelled the deposition.

            Accordingly, no depositions were taken as the remaining parties would not proceed without first

            taking 1407 Defendants’ deposition.

                   The parties scheduled depositions of 1407 Defendants for February 2024, but these did

            not go forward because 1407 Defendants were still seeking a suitable witness to be deposed.

            Finally, on March 25, 2024, 1407 Broadway LLC appeared for a deposition, but the witness had

            no information to provide. Henick and Arsenal continued to refuse to appear for a deposition

            before 1407 Defendants. The last deposition of 1407 Defendants, scheduled on April 10, 2024,

            was cancelled due to a family emergency.

                   Plaintiff now moves to strike all of the defendants’ answers. According to plaintiff,

            defendants have willfully failed to comply with discovery directives and have stonewalled

            discovery by failing to appear for depositions. Plaintiff argues that defendants have ignored four

            court orders directing them to appear for depositions, suggesting they are willfully obstructing

            the discovery process.

                   Defendant Arsenal contends that in the summer of 2023, its counsel was undergoing a

            firm dissolution, but was ready to proceed with depositions, in caption order, on each of the

            scheduled dates. Arsenal argues that the parties agreed to pause depositions in the lead up to the

            August mediation. Further, Arsenal maintains that the parties also agreed to conduct depositions

            in caption order, and requiring the other defendants to appear for depositions before the 1407

            Defendants is inconsistent with this agreement. According to Arsenal, there is no evidence it has

            acted in a willful, deliberate, and contumacious manner so as to merit its answer being stricken.

             150825/2020 SUERO-CHE, AUDIS M. vs. 1407 BROADWAY, LLC                              Page 3 of 8
             Motion No. 003

                                                           3 of 8
[* 3]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 05:00 PM                                                INDEX NO. 150825/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   1407 Defendants contend that plaintiff misrepresents the nature of the discovery dispute,

            arguing that the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations and mediation, resulting in the

            delay. Additionally, 1407 Defendants assert that a willful and contumacious failure means an

            “outright expressed intention not to participate in discovery,” which is not the case here

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 152 at 4). 1407 Defendants argue that plaintiff has not met its burden to

            demonstrate defendants have acted in accordance with this standard. Moreover, 1407 Defendants

            contend that plaintiff has not requested anymore discovery conferences to resolve this issue.

                   Henick incorporates Arsenal’s arguments and adds that is has been ready and willing to

            participate in depositions, but it is the eighth named defendant and only one other defendant has

            been deposed at this time.

            Discussion

                   Failure to comply with discovery, particularly after a court order has been issued, may

            constitute the "dilatory and obstructive, and thus contumacious, conduct warranting the striking

            of [the answer]" (Kutner v Feiden, Dweck & Sladkus, 223AD2d 488, 489, 637 N.Y.S.2d 15 [1st

            Dept 1996]. "The striking of a party's pleadings should not, however, be imposed except in

            instances where the party seeking disclosure demonstrates conclusively that the failure to

            disclose was willful, contumacious or due in bad faith" (Hassan v Manhattan & Bronx Surface

            Tr. Operating Auth., 286 AD2d 303, 304, 730 N.Y.S.2d 286 [1st Dept 2001]). The determination

            to strike a pleading lies "within the court's broad discretion" (Banner v New York City Hous.

            Auth., 73 AD3d 502, 503, 900 N.Y.S.2d 857 [1st Dept 2010]).

            1407 Defendants

                   The Court grants plaintiff’s motion with respect to 1407 Defendants.

             150825/2020 SUERO-CHE, AUDIS M. vs. 1407 BROADWAY, LLC                               Page 4 of 8
             Motion No. 003

                                                           4 of 8
[* 4]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 05:00 PM                                                INDEX NO. 150825/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   1407 Defendants do not offer any reasonable explanation for its noncompliance with the

            orders. While the parties were attempting to engage in mediation after the third order was issued,

            1407 Defendants cancelled the mediation and then failed to communicate with their adversaries

            regarding the scheduled depositions. Significantly, “the willful failure to comply with a

            discovery order assumes an ability to comply and a decision not to comply” (Dauria v New York,

            127 AD2d 459, 460, 511 NYS2d 271 [1st Dept 1987] [internal quotations and citations

            omitted]). Instances in which a court declines to strike an answer involve reasonable excuses on

            behalf of the noncomplying party (see Pezhman v Dept. of Educ. of the City of New York, 95

            AD3d 625, 944 NYS2d 128 [1st Dept 2012] [finding that defendant did not have control of a

            nonparty ex-employee to produce requested documents, thus striking its answer was

            inappropriate]; Delgado v City of New York 47 AD3d 550, 850 NYS2d 401 [1st Dept 2008]

            [finding that defendant had a reasonable excuse for not producing retired officers for depositions,

            thus striking defendant’s answer was unwarranted]).

                   None of the parties demonstrated that they seriously pursued scheduling depositions in

            accordance with the first two orders from 2022. The Court cannot speculate as to why

            depositions did not take place at all in 2022—they may not have been noticed or maybe there

            was no communication between the parties. Regardless, these two orders were ignored with

            virtually no explanation given. As to the third discovery order, dated April 19, 2023, all

            defendants agree that the parties were attempting to engage in mediation at the time the

            depositions were supposed to go forward.

                   The fourth discovery order, however, 1407 Defendants displayed a much more egregious

            disregard for Court orders. In August 2023, the Court ordered a December deposition date.

            Plaintiff followed up regarding these deposition dates multiple times (NYSCEF Doc. No. 140).

             150825/2020 SUERO-CHE, AUDIS M. vs. 1407 BROADWAY, LLC                               Page 5 of 8
             Motion No. 003

                                                           5 of 8
[* 5]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 05:00 PM                                                INDEX NO. 150825/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

            1407 Defendants knew that if their deposition did not go forward, no other defendant would

            proceed, as they all agreed to go by caption order. 1407 Defendants did not respond to

            communications confirming any scheduling, so that when Arsenal requested that they move the

            date forward, there was no objection from any party (id. at 9). Suddenly, the day before the

            parties were set to take 1407 Defendants’ deposition, they could no longer appear. 1407

            Defendants had months and an email chain circulating for weeks prior that offered them an

            opportunity to address any concerns with the deposition schedule. They never did. Moreover,

            after the December deposition dates passed and the parties attempted to schedule depositions

            without court intervention, 1407 Defendants claimed they were still seeking a witness that could

            appear for a deposition. This was nearly two years after depositions first started. There is no

            excuse for such a delay.

                   When 1407 Defendants finally produced a witness for a deposition, this person had no

            knowledge of the case. 1407 Defendants have wasted the time and resources of their colleagues

            and the Court. This Court acknowledges that the last scheduled deposition did not go forward

            due to a claimed family emergency, but there were years and multiple orders before this

            emergency that were ignored without explanation, and that is wholly unacceptable. 1407

            Defendants displayed a severe indifference to the discovery process, nonchalance in their

            communications with their colleagues and treated court orders as suggestions. They were

            unprepared even years after the parties first attempted to schedule depositions. While other

            defendants demonstrated a readiness to proceed with depositions, 1407 Defendants have

            obstructed the case by failing to appear on multiple occasions. Such obstruction and disregard for

            the litigation process cannot be tolerated.

             150825/2020 SUERO-CHE, AUDIS M. vs. 1407 BROADWAY, LLC                               Page 6 of 8
             Motion No. 003

                                                           6 of 8
[* 6]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 05:00 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 150825/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

            Henick and Arsenal

                   The Court denies the motion with respect to Henick and Arsenal. The parties repeatedly

            stated they would proceed with depositions in caption order, and plaintiff does not dispute this

            agreement. The record shows communication between the parties and a willingness to participate

            in the discovery process (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 140, 151). Caption order requires that the parties

            show up in the order they are listed and does not mean that someone else goes in lieu of the first

            named party. The record shows that Henick and Arsenal repeatedly consented to appearing for

            the initial deposition of 1407 Defendants; it does not show a willful and contumacious failure on

            behalf of Henick and Arsenal to proceed with the discovery process. Punishing the remaining

            defendants who demonstrated preparedness and adequate communication is unwarranted at this

            time. Depositions of the remaining defendants shall follow and be completed on or before June

            7, 2024. It does not have to be in caption order and whoever does not appear by the deadline may

            suffer penalties. The best practice may be to schedule it earlier rather than later because this

            deadline will be enforced.

                   Accordingly, it is hereby

                   ORDERED that the motion to strike defendants’ answers is granted only as to 1407

            Broadway LLC, SRI Eleven 1407 Broadway Operators, LLC, Solil Management LLC, The

            Estate Of Sol Goldman, Shorenstein Properties, LLC, The Sweet Construction Group Ltd.

            (“1407 Defendants”) and their answers, cross-claims, and affirmative defenses are stricken, and

             150825/2020 SUERO-CHE, AUDIS M. vs. 1407 BROADWAY, LLC                                Page 7 of 8
             Motion No. 003

                                                           7 of 8
[* 7]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 05:00 PM                                                       INDEX NO. 150825/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

            there shall be an inquest at time of trial or, if the matter is resolved with respect to the remaining

            parties prior to trial, then plaintiff shall file a note of issue for an inquest; and it is further

                    ORDERED that Henick and Arsenal must each produce someone with knowledge and

            appear for a deposition on or before June 7, 2024. It does not have to be in caption order and

            whoever fails to timely produce a witness with knowledge may suffer appropriate penalties.

                    4/18/2024                                                                $SIG$
                      DATE                                                           ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                 X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                       □
                                           GRANTED              DENIED   X   GRANTED IN PART                OTHER

             APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                       □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT          REFERENCE

             150825/2020 SUERO-CHE, AUDIS M. vs. 1407 BROADWAY, LLC                                      Page 8 of 8
             Motion No. 003

                                                              8 of 8
[* 8]