Key Takeaway
Court rules on discovery penalties when employees leave and corporate representatives fail to appear for depositions in NY personal injury cases.
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 103 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.
Discovery Sanctions in New York: When Striking an Answer Goes Too Far
In New York litigation, courts have broad discretion to impose sanctions for discovery failures. However, the “drastic remedy” of striking an answer requires a showing that the non-compliance was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith. The Fourth Department’s decision in Cason v Smith illustrates two important limitations on discovery sanctions.
Key Takeaway
Courts cannot sanction a party for a former employee’s failure to appear for deposition, and discovery becomes moot when the party concedes the facts the deposition was meant to establish — making a motion to strike the answer inappropriate.
The Case: Cason v Smith
Cason v Smith, 2014 NY Slip Op 06412 (4th Dept. 2014)
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis
This is an interesting discovery case. The first principle is that once the employee leaves the employ, a 3126 sanction is not proper.
The second principle involves getting blood from a stone. Once the to-be-deposed party folds its tent and concedes the key point, the adverse party cannot get the answer stricken or the complaint dismissed when the to-be-deposed party skips deposition.
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.
The Court’s Ruling
Former Employees Cannot Be Compelled Through Sanctions
“We agree with defendants, however, that the court abused its discretion in striking the answer insofar as interposed by Werner. Initially, we note that there was no basis for the court to sanction Werner for failing to produce Smith inasmuch as Smith left Werner’s employ prior to commencement of the action, and plaintiff “proffered no evidence that [Werner] exercised control over [Smith] and thus was responsible for [Smith’s] failure to appear for his deposition.””
The Standard for Striking an Answer Under CPLR 3126
The court reiterated the established framework for discovery sanctions:
- The drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a showing of willful, contumacious, or bad faith non-compliance
- Once the moving party establishes willful non-compliance, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to offer a reasonable excuse
- Here, plaintiff met the initial burden, shifting the burden to defendant
When Discovery Becomes Moot: Conceding Respondeat Superior
“Plaintiff sought to depose a Werner representative solely in connection with his cause of action involving negligent hiring, training, and supervision, and such discovery was no longer relevant after Werner conceded the facts necessary to establish liability as a matter of law based on respondeat superior.”
Werner offered a reasonable excuse: the discovery was no longer relevant because it had already conceded the legal point the deposition was intended to address.
Practical Implications for Personal Injury Practitioners
This decision provides important guidance for both sides of discovery disputes:
For defendants:
- You cannot be sanctioned for former employees’ non-compliance
- Conceding key issues can render outstanding discovery moot and defeat sanction motions
- Always offer a reasonable excuse for any delay in compliance
For plaintiffs seeking no-fault insurance defense or personal injury discovery:
- Depose key witnesses before they leave employment when possible
- Discovery demands must remain relevant to contested issues
- A party’s concession of the underlying facts eliminates the need for further depositions on that topic
Related Articles
- When assignor EBT failures don’t justify sanctions against assignees under CPLR 3126
- Court analysis of inappropriate circumstances for CPLR 3212(f) discovery relief
- EBT procedural requirements and sanctions in no-fault cases
- Understanding undue hardship exceptions for NY deposition venue rules
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
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.
103 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
A plain disaster
Understanding EBT procedural requirements and Fogel decision impacts in no-fault insurance litigation. Expert analysis of A.M. Medical Services v GEICO case.
May 29, 2009
Correct Note of issue asserting discovery is outstanding not basis for striking Note
Queens Supreme Court ruling allows Note of Issue to stand despite outstanding discovery, raising concerns about proper case management procedures.
Apr 13, 2017
EUO no show substantiated
Natural Therapy Acupuncture v State Farm: New York court upholds EUO no-show denial when insurer proves proper mailing and defense counsel confirms non-appearance.
Feb 11, 2014
On the CPLR front – 3126(3) motion granted when party deponent lies during deposition
Appellate Term reverses Civil Court, grants CPLR 3126(3) motion to dismiss complaint when plaintiff perjured herself about medical history during EBT deposition.
Apr 16, 2011Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
4 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What did the court rule about discovery sanctions in Cason v Smith?
The Fourth Department held that striking the answer was an abuse of discretion because the defendant could not be sanctioned for a former employee's failure to appear, and the corporate deposition became moot after the defendant conceded respondeat superior liability.
Can a party be sanctioned under CPLR 3126 for a former employee's failure to appear?
No. A party cannot be sanctioned for failing to produce a former employee for deposition when the employee left before the action commenced and the party offered no evidence of control over the former employee.
When is striking an answer appropriate as a discovery sanction in New York?
Striking an answer requires a showing that the failure to comply with discovery was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith. Even then, the non-moving party may avoid sanctions by offering a reasonable excuse for the failure.
What happens when discovery becomes moot because a party concedes a key issue?
When a party concedes the facts that the discovery was meant to establish, the opposing party cannot demand further depositions on that issue or seek sanctions for non-compliance with the now-moot discovery request.
Was 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.
