Key Takeaway
New York court strikes defendant's answer after fifth discovery default - willful failure to comply with successive disclosure orders under CPLR 3126
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 99 published articles analyzing discovery issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Rodriguez v United Bronx Parents, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 01366 (1st Dept. 2010):
“Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered August 26, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike defendant’s answer solely to the extent of granting plaintiff a missing witness charge as to Nadia James and Victor Martinez, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, the cross motion to strike granted….”
“Here, plaintiff established that defendant’s failure to comply was willful and contumacious, given its repeated and persistent failure to comply with five successive disclosure orders (see Goldstein v CIBC World Mkts. Corp. 30 AD3d 217 ; Min Yoon v Costello, 29 AD3d 407 ; compare Pascarelli v City of New York, 16 AD3d 472 ). Defendant’s failure to adequately explain what efforts were made to locate the documents it failed to disclose, or to explain its inability to provide the last known addresses of its former residents or employees, also supports a finding that its failure to comply was willful. Furthermore, defense counsel’s “Affirmation of Search” did not indicate whether he was the custodian of defendant’s records, what records were searched, who conducted the search, what the search consisted of, and the statement was made upon “information and belief.” Accordingly, this statement is devoid of detail and insufficient.”
After the fifth time that defendant stonewalled the plaintiff, the Supreme Court granted plaintiff a missing witness charge. The Appellate Division was unimpressed and, upon Defendant’s appeal, struck the Defendant’s complaint.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Related Articles
- Discovery Violations and Court Sanctions: When New York Courts Strike Back
- Final order of preclusion became automatic – no need to move for one
- Civil Procedure Pitfalls: The High Cost of Improper Note of Issue Filing in New York
- Some newer cases
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): While the fundamental principles of CPLR 3126 discovery sanctions remain intact, practitioners should verify current procedural requirements and judicial standards, as court rules and case law interpretations regarding discovery compliance and sanctions have continued to evolve since 2010. The specific threshold for finding willful and contumacious conduct may have been refined through subsequent appellate decisions.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Discovery Practice in New York Courts
Discovery is the pre-trial process through which parties exchange information relevant to the dispute. In New York, discovery practice is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions, interrogatories, document demands, and physical examinations. Disputes over the scope of discovery, compliance with demands, and sanctions for noncompliance are frequent in both no-fault and personal injury cases. These articles analyze discovery rules, court decisions on discovery disputes, and strategies for effective discovery practice.
99 published articles in Discovery
Keep Reading
More Discovery Analysis
Litigation Funding Disclosure in New York: What Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Means for Both Bars — and for Injured Clients
A NY appellate court allowed defendants to discover third-party litigation funding in a personal injury suit. What Lituma means for both bars and claimants.
Jun 14, 2026
Another Discovery
Appellate Term ruling on discovery objections shows courts won't disturb trial court discretion when defendants fail to timely object within CPLR's 20-day period.
May 22, 2021Some newer cases
Recent 2008 New York no-fault insurance procedural decisions on stipulations, discovery sanctions, and precluded defenses affecting Nassau, Suffolk, Queens litigation.
Nov 16, 2008
Dismissal for failure to comply with one discovery order
Court dismisses personal injury complaint after plaintiff fails to comply with single discovery order, despite belated compliance - analysis of CPLR 3126 sanctions.
Nov 28, 2016
A motion for summary judgment is denied pending disclosure
New York court denies summary judgment in no-fault case where plaintiff timely requested but didn't receive peer review reports and medical documentation from defendant insurer.
Jan 6, 2014
Remote Depositions for International Parties: Legal Precedent from Long Island and NYC Courts
Learn when NY courts allow remote depositions for international parties. Key 2011 precedent for Long Island & NYC attorneys handling overseas witnesses.
Feb 21, 2011Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a discovery matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
