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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Related Articles
- Discovery Violations and Court Sanctions: When New York Courts Strike Back
- Civil Procedure Pitfalls: The High Cost of Improper Note of Issue Filing in New York
- Final order of preclusion became automatic – no need to move for one
- Appellate Term holds CPLR 3212(f) relief is inappropriate under three separate circumstances
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
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.
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, 2021
Was there a basis for detailed disclosure?
Court rules plaintiff must comply with discovery demands after failing to timely object, absent showing information sought is palpably improper or privileged.
Sep 21, 2017
The articulable need test for a provider EBT on a medical necessity case
New York court ruling shows that provider depositions in no-fault cases require "articulable need" - even minimal disclosure may suffice to block EBT motions.
Apr 11, 2014
Jumped the gun on preclusion
Appellate Term reverses premature discovery preclusion order, ruling employee with knowledge can verify interrogatories and sanctions require willful misconduct.
Jun 18, 2012
Court-Ordered Blood Tests and Medical Discovery in NY Personal Injury Cases
Learn when NY courts can compel blood tests and medical exams in personal injury litigation. Expert guidance on CPLR 3121 & medical discovery. Call 516-750-0595
Jan 7, 2010Was 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.
