Skip to main content
Brutal discovery decision from the Appellate Term First Department
Discovery

Brutal discovery decision from the Appellate Term First Department

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Appellate Term First Department issues harsh discovery sanctions ruling, striking defendant's answer for failure to respond to disclosure requests in no-fault case.

This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 98 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.

Michael Palmeri, M.D., PLLC v General Assur. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51879(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2010)

I am not even sure this is something you would even see out of the second department.  I am working off the assumption that there were no prior discovery applications in this matter; rather, this was the first discovery motion and it was either first time or second time the motion was on the calendar.

Here is the short discussion from the case:

“Defendant did not present a reasonable excuse for its failure to provide written responses to plaintiff’s disclosure requests or its failure to submit opposition papers to plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer pursuant to CPLR 3126. Therefore, Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against it following its failure to oppose plaintiff’s motion to strike.

Even assuming that defendant’s argument regarding its request for an adjournment of plaintiff’s motion to strike is properly before us, Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that request (see generally Santora & McKay v Mazzella, 211 AD2d 460, 462 ).”

So this is what the court is telling me: (1) Make a discovery motion on every case; (2) Refuse to consent to any adjournments; (3) Force the court to write an order on all of these motions; and (4) Appeal every case where answering papers were not interposed and the court refuses to strike the complaint.

Query – can it now be argued that in a no-fault matter, it is an abuse of discretion not to strike a plaintiff’s complaint, where the ultimate sanction for failing to respond to a perfunctory disclosure motion is not granted?  Think about it.


Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 decision, CPLR 3126 discovery sanctions procedures and standards may have been modified through legislative amendments or appellate decisions refining the “reasonable excuse” standard and discretionary factors for vacating defaults. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding discovery motion practice, adjournment protocols, and appellate review standards for Civil Court discovery sanctions.

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.

98 published articles in Discovery

Common Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

What is discovery in New York civil litigation?

Discovery is the pre-trial phase where parties exchange relevant information and evidence. Under CPLR Article 31, discovery methods include depositions (oral questioning under oath), interrogatories (written questions), document demands, requests for admission, and physical or mental examinations. Discovery in New York is governed by the principle of full disclosure of all relevant, non-privileged information — but courts can issue protective orders to limit discovery that is overly broad or burdensome.

What happens if a party fails to comply with discovery requests?

Under CPLR 3126, a court can impose penalties for failure to comply with discovery, including preclusion of evidence, striking of pleadings, or even dismissal of the action or entry of a default judgment. Before seeking sanctions, the requesting party typically must demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute and may need to file a motion to compel disclosure under CPLR 3124.

What are interrogatories and how are they used in New York litigation?

Interrogatories are written questions served on the opposing party that must be answered under oath within a specified timeframe. Under CPLR 3130, interrogatories in New York are limited — a party may serve a maximum of 25 interrogatories, including subparts, without court permission. Interrogatories are useful for obtaining basic factual information such as witness names, insurance details, and factual contentions. Objections must be specific and timely or they may be waived.

What is a bill of particulars in New York personal injury cases?

A bill of particulars under CPLR 3043 and 3044 provides the defendant with the specific details of the plaintiff's claims — including the injuries sustained, the theory of liability, and the damages sought. In personal injury cases, it must specify each injury, the body parts affected, and the nature of the damages claimed. An amended or supplemental bill may be served to include new injuries or updated information discovered during the course of litigation.

What sanctions can a court impose for discovery violations in New York?

Under CPLR 3126, courts can impose graduated sanctions: (1) issue preclusion orders, (2) strike pleadings, or (3) dismiss the action or enter default judgment. The severity depends on the willfulness of the non-compliance and whether the violation was prejudicial.

Was this article helpful?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.

Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.

Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

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.

Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Discussion

Comments (6)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

S
slick
1st dept takes discovery seriously and always has. Based on the order, no one can determine how deserved the penalty was or how many adjournments were given. If you have a new strategy in mind, opposing adjournments usually doesnt pay off in the long run.
S
SunTzu
Responding to these statements: JT- “So this is what the court is telling me: (1) Make a discovery motion on every case; (2) Refuse to consent to any adjournments; (3) Force the court to write an order on all of these motions; and (4) Appeal every case where answering papers were not interposed and the court refuses to strike the complaint.” Slick- “Based on the order, no one can determine how deserved the penalty was or how many adjournments were given.” This was, indeed, the first time up on the motion to strike. However, facts are far removed from JT’s understanding. The Plaintiff attempted to stip it out using a standard form stip with preclusionary language. Counsel for the carrier refused to execute the stipulation, under the argument that she was under orders from her office not to execute a stipulate with preclusionary language. Counsel submitted no aff in opp, no discovery and still refused to stipulate. She, in effect, demanded that the Court merely adjourn the motion with no attendant obligation to produce the discovery. Thus, she demanded that everything be back to square one at the adjourned date, still no obligation to produce anything, with no excuse for the lack of production. Counsel and her firm played hardball for some God-foresaken reason and it blew up in their face. Playing hardball will only get our attention and piss us off. Court feels the same way, apparently.
J
JT Author
Sun, I will not pass judgment on defense counsel’s actions in this case, except to say that you reap what you sow. One more question – how far was the return date from the service date of the motion?
S
slick
it may be dependent on the venue. in NY county, 1st-time on motions are granted an adjournment as a matter of course. I’m sure that BX practice is different. I wouldnt sign a conditional preclusion stip either unless there was no better option. Was there a prior order such as a PC or CC?
J
JT Author
The rules for adjourning discovery motions depend on the county and really the type of case that is involved. It should not shock the reader of this blog that a discovery motion in a medical malpractice or complicated tort or contract case will be treated differently than a similar motion in a no-fault case. As you are aware, New York County follows the Supreme Court method of mandating disclosure conferences before a case may be certified for trial. In most of the other lower courts, there is no barrier to certifying a case for trial upon joinder of issue. This in turn causes firms to file the types of disclosure motions that are shunned upon in Supreme Court practice and New York County no-fault practice. I wish the lower courts would follow the New York County method, if only because it makes discovery more orderly and not a sword to non-suit someone. I am not alleging that Sun’s firm files discovery motions for the purpose of seeking to place defendant’s into substantive default. A discovery motion in the First Department, especially in response to Sun’s interrogatory #18, will allow the plaintiff to establish its prima facie case. My only gripe, again, is that there are many firms, both plaintiff and defendant, that use the discovery process as nothing more than a game. It is this practice that I find disturbing, and would compel me to take a hard line position to signing stipulations, similar to Defendant in this case. The only difference, of course, is that I would adequately answer the underlying discovery motion. Lastly, I can tell you that I personally do not file a Part 40 discovery motion unless there is something I need from Plaintiff. I disdain frivolous motion practice.
S
SunTzu
“I wouldnt sign a conditional preclusion stip either unless there was no better option. Was there a prior order such as a PC or CC?” Well, if the Court gave you the option, of course you would not. If you are given the opportunity for a “do over” with no consequences, you take it, especially if you really don’t want to provide discovery in the first instance. There was no prior order in this case. The return date was “only” about 2-4 months after service/submission of the motion. However, when the carrier moved to vacate the default/reargue/renew (forget which), it failed even at that point to provide discovery or provide admissible proof justifying the failure to produce. In fact, over the course of years, the Appellant never addressed this failure. It’s important to stress that counsel failed to provide any excuse for delaying production at the hearing at issue. She merely refused to stipulate because she was ordered by her office not to. This Bronx Civ Court does not provide automatic adjournments on discovery motions. It’s up to the Court on a case by case basis. However, I don’t think you will run into this sort of trouble unless you (1) provide no excuse for lack of production, even a hearsay excuse presented orally to the Court; and (2) outright refuse to stipulate to produce the discovery at a later date under the argument “my office will not let me so stipulate.” The only conclusion the court was left with was either that the carrier was outright stonewalling, or simply desiring to waste everyone’s time. As a little background, by information and belief, there are docs in the carrier’s possession that refute its denial– documents produced by the carrier’s own experts. The carrier was likely faced with the dilemma of either withholding discovery and lying about that– probably not the best thing to do against us– or exposing their defense as contrived. So there was likely a wise basis for the firm’s refusal to stipulate, as there was a wise basis for the Court’s ruling.

Legal Resources

Understanding New York Discovery Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how discovery cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For discovery matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review