Vancott v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Cases that cite this one
30 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Avenue C Construction, Inc. v. Gassner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Patterson v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Goetz v. Public Serv. Truck Renting, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Lopes v. Metropolitan Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Pacheco v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Anonymous v. Duane Reade, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Rocco v. Family Foot Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Arcade Contracting & Restoration, Inc. v. 24 Aqueduct Lane Condominium Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Melvin v. 24 Aqueduct Lane Condominium (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Tine v. Courtview Owners Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Soto v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Williams v. Ryder TRS, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Mawson v. Historic Properties, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- W.O.R.C. Realty Corp. v. Assessor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- A.F.C. Enterprises, Inc. v. New York City School Construction Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Lombardo v. St. Francis Hospital Rehabilitation Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Lidge v. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Mercado v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Cestaro v. Mun Yuen Roger Chin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Jenkins v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Rivera v. Torah (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Briggs v. Allstate Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Klutchko v. Baron (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Klutchko v. Baron (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Bach v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cowan, J.), dated April 1, 1999, which, in effect, granted the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendant’s answer and (2) an order of the same court dated September 10, 1999, which denied the defendant’s motion, in effect, for reargument.
Ordered that the order dated April, 1, 1999, is reversed, and the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendant’s answer is denied; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 10, 1999, is dismissed as academic in light of our determination of the appeal from the order dated April 1, 1999; and it is further;
Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.
We agree with the defendant that it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to strike its answer. In order to invoke the drastic remedy of preclusion which effectively results in the striking of a pleading, the court must determine that the party’s failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful, deliberate, and contumacious conduct or its equivalent (see, CPLR 3126; Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663, 664; Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524). Here, the record does not support a finding that the defendant willfully and deliberately failed to comply with outstanding discovery requests. Rather, the record shows that the defendant complied with numerous discovery demands made by the plaintiff. There has been no showing that the defendant was “guilty of a deliberately evasive, misleading and uncooperative course of conduct or a determined strategy of delay that would be deserving of the most vehement condemnation” (Forman v Jamesway Corp., 175 AD2d 514, 515-516; accord, Sawh v Bridges, 120 AD2d 74, 79).
The defendant’s further contention that the Supreme Court erred in characterizing its motion for renewal and/or reargument as one for reargument only is academic in light of our determination. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.