Key Takeaway
New York court upholds dismissal of no-fault insurance case for willful discovery violations under CPLR 3126, demonstrating when drastic sanctions are warranted.
Jamhil Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51028(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3126, on the ground that plaintiff had failed to comply with the July 6, 2011 order of the Civil Court since plaintiff had failed to produce its owner and its employee for duly scheduled examinations before trial. Plaintiff opposed the motion and submitted written responses to defendant’s discovery demands. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court entered July 17, 2012 which granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”
” The determination whether to strike a pleading for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure lies within the sound discretion of the trial court’ ” (Orgel v Stewart Tit. Ins. Co., 91 AD3d 922, 923 , quoting Giano v Ioannou, 78 AD3d 768, 770 , quoting Fishbane v Chelsea Hall, LLC, 65 AD3d 1079, 1081 ; see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 ). Although dismissing a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a drastic remedy, it is warranted where a party’s conduct is shown to be willful, contumacious or in bad faith (see Rock City Sound, Inc. v Bashian & Farber, LLP, 83 AD3d 685 ). In the present case, plaintiff’s willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from its refusal to adequately comply with [*2]discovery requests, even after being directed to do so by court order, as well as the absence of a reasonable excuse for its failure to comply (see Tos v Jackson Hgts. Care Ctr., LLC, 91 AD3d 943 ; Rowell v Joyce, 10 AD3d 601 ).”
So the Court found that a one strike rule was proper.
Related Articles
- Discovery Violations and Court Sanctions: When New York Courts Strike Back
- Appellate Term holds CPLR 3212(f) relief is inappropriate under three separate circumstances
- Recent procedural developments in NY no-fault insurance law cases
- A plain disaster: EBT procedural requirements in no-fault cases
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 decision, CPLR 3126 discovery sanctions provisions may have been amended through legislative changes or updated judicial interpretations regarding the standard for dismissal remedies. Additionally, appellate courts may have refined the analysis of what constitutes “willful, contumacious or in bad faith” conduct warranting case dismissal. Practitioners should verify current CPLR 3126 requirements and recent precedential developments before relying on the specific standards discussed in this older decision.
