| Commisso v Orshan |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05219 [85 AD3d 845] |
| June 14, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Caroline Commisso, Appellant, v Steven G. Orshan et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Kelly Rode & Kelly, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (John W. Hoefling of counsel), for respondentsSteven G. Orshan and Nassau Queens Pulmonary Associates, P.C. McHenry, Horan & Lapping, P.C., Syosset, N.Y. (Judith Pilatsky of counsel), forrespondents Robert D. Herman, Michael J. Goldstein, Stephen R. Siegel, Robert D. Herman, andIra S. Goldman, M.D., P.C. Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Valhalla, N.Y. (Jacqueline Mandell of counsel), forrespondents David Faitell, Pro Health Care Associates, LLP, and Prohealth—Division ofDiagnostic Imaging & Radiology.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, etc.,the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.),dated November 30, 2009, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Steven G.Orshan and Nassau Queens Pulmonary Associates, P.C., the defendants Robert D. Herman,Michael J. Goldstein, Stephen R. Siegel, Robert D. Herman, and Ira S. Goldman, M.D., P.C., andthe defendants David A. Faitell, Pro Health Care Associates, LLP, andProhealth—Division of Diagnostic Imaging & Radiology, pursuant to CPLR 3126 todismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them for failure to comply withdiscovery orders, and (2) and an order of the same court dated September 15, 2010, which deniedher motion for leave to renew her opposition to the motions.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filingseparate briefs.
The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter withinthe discretion of the trial court (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122-123 [1999]; Umar v Ohrnberger, 72 AD3d1066, 1066-1067 [2010]; Joseph vIannace, 6 AD3d 502, 503 [2004]). The drastic remedy [*2]of striking a pleading is warranted where the party's failure tocomply with court-ordered discovery is willful and contumacious (see Morgenstern v Jeffsam Corp., 78AD3d 913, 914 [2010]; Bomzer vParke-Davis, Div. of Warner Lambert Co., 41 AD3d 522 [2007]). The willful andcontumacious character of a party's conduct can be inferred from the party's repeated failure tocomply with discovery demands or orders without a reasonable excuse (see Workman v Town of Southampton,69 AD3d 619, 620 [2010]; Horne vSwimquip, Inc., 36 AD3d 859, 859 [2007]; Sowerby v Camarda, 20 AD3d 411 [2005]). Here, the plaintiff'swillful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from her repeated failure, over an extendedperiod of time, to appear for a deposition, provide outstanding authorizations, and servesupplemental bills of particulars in compliance with the Supreme Court's orders and a so-orderedstipulation without a reasonable excuse. Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in granting the defendants' separate motions to dismiss the complaint insofar asasserted against each of them.
The Supreme Court also properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew heropposition to the defendants' motions. In her motion for leave to renew, the plaintiff failed to setforth new facts "that would change the prior determination" as well as a "reasonable justificationfor the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; see Ferdico v Zweig, 82 AD3d1151, 1153 [2011]; Yarde v NewYork City Tr. Auth., 4 AD3d 352, 353 [2004]; Emanuel v Broadway MallProps., 293 AD2d 708, 709 [2002]). Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Cohen, JJ.,concur.