Turk Eximbank-Export Credit Bank of Turkey v Bicakcioglu

2011 NY Slip Op 01054

Decided on February 15, 2011

Appellate Division, First Department

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 15, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
4256 603570/07






Feder Kaszovitz LLP, New York (Alvin M. Feder of counsel),
for appellants.
Zara Law Offices, New York (Robert M. Zara of counsel), for
respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered March 16, 2010, awarding plaintiff the total sum of $76,951.92 as against defendants-appellants, and bringing up for review an order, same court and J.H.O., entered January 14, 2010, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion to strike appellants' answer for failure to comply with discovery, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking appellants' answer and entering judgment in plaintiff's favor. Appellants' repeated failure to offer a reasonable excuse for their noncompliance with discovery requests gives rise to an inference of willful and contumacious conduct that warranted the striking of the answer (see Figiel v Met Food, 48 AD3d 330 [2008]; CPLR 3126[3]). Contrary to appellants' contention, the court did not err when it advised appellants that their answer would be stricken if their discovery responses were found by the Special Referee to be noncompliant with plaintiff's requests (compare Corner Realty 30/7 v Bernstein Mgt. Corp., 249 AD2d 191, 194 [1998]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 15, 2011

CLERK