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.
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.
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 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.
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
- 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.
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
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
Conditional Order of preclusion substitutes for willfulness
New York court ruling clarifies that willfulness is not required for preclusion sanctions when parties violate conditional orders of preclusion in discovery disputes.
Jul 20, 2020
CPLR 3101(i) Video Disclosure: Mid-Trial Dismissal Reversed in Fox v Grand Slam
Fox v Grand Slam Banquet Hall: the First Department reverses a mid-trial dismissal for belated video disclosure under CPLR 3101(i), absent willful conduct.
Sep 16, 2016
EBT order as an alternative to a denied medical necessity motion
When medical necessity motions are denied, providers can use EBT orders to compel chiropractor depositions in no-fault cases under CPLR 3101(a) discovery rules.
Oct 27, 2013
Understanding Errata Sheets and Credibility Issues in New York Depositions
Yefet v Shalmoni: how an errata sheet and expert evidence raised a factual issue, the CPLR 3116 deadline, and limits on contradictory deposition changes.
Feb 4, 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.
