| Suazo-Alvarez v Nordlaw, LLC |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01529 [48 AD3d 670] |
| February 19, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jose Antonio Suazo-Alvarez et al.,Respondents, v Nordlaw, LLC, et al., Defendants, and Renewal Arts Contracting andEnvironmental Corp. et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (John M. Shaw of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Renewal ArtsContracting and Environmental Corp. and Renewal Arts Contracting Corp. appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruditzky, J.), dated December 4, 2006, which granted theplaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 for the imposition of sanctions to the extent of strikingtheir answer unless they provided a response to certain discovery demands within a certain time.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR3126 lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see CPLR 3126 [3]; Kihl vPfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122-123 [1999]; Rowell v Joyce, 10 AD3d 601 [2004]; My Carpet, Inc. v Bruce Supply Corp.,8 AD3d 248 [2004]; Joseph vIannace, 6 AD3d 502, 503 [2004]; Ordonez v Guerra, 295 AD2d 325, 326[2002]). There is nothing in the record herein that warrants disturbing the court's exercise of itsdiscretion in this case. The court could have properly inferred the willful and contumaciouscharacter of the appellants' conduct from their repeated failures to respond to the plaintiffs'discovery demands and/or to comply with the court's discovery orders (see Horne v Swimquip, Inc., 36 AD3d859, 860-861 [2007]; Sowerby v[*2]Camarda, 20 AD3d 411 [2005]; Bodine vLadjevardi, 284 AD2d 351, 352 [2001]; Reed v Jaspan, Ginsberg, Schlesinger, Silverman& Hoffman, 283 AD2d 630 [2001]). Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Miller, Covello and McCarthy,JJ., concur.