Resnick v. Schwarzkopf
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Delarosa v. Besser Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- L&L Auto Distributors & Suppliers Inc. v. Auto Collection, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Polsky v. Tuckman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Hutchinson v. Langer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Mironer v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Canaan v. Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Steven L. Levitt & Associates, P.C. v. Balkin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- ACME ANC Corp. v. Read (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Comprehensive Care v. Romero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Sau Ting Cheng v. Prime Design Realty, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
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, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, injury to property, and emotional distress, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, Jr., J.), dated October 18, 2006, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“[T]he drastic remedy of striking a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure should be granted only where the conduct of the party is shown to be willful and contumacious” (Russo v Tolchin, 35 AD3d 431, 434 [2006]; see Prappas v Papadatos, 38 AD3d 871 [2007]; Jenkins v City of New York, 13 AD3d 342, 343 [2004]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to dismiss the complaint since the plaintiff substantially, albeit tardily, provided the requested disclosure, and her conduct was not willful and contumacious (see Mawson v Historic Props., LLC, 30 AD3d 480 [2006]; Lombardo v St. Francis Hosp. Rehabilitation Servs., 16 AD3d 385 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.