| Oasis Sportswear, Inc. v Rego |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03752 [95 AD3d 592] |
| May 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Oasis Sportswear, Inc., Respondent, v Patricia Rego et al.,Appellants. Patricia Rego et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Joseph Trachtman,Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (And Another Action.) |
—[*1] Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A., New York (Jed M. Weiss of counsel), forrespondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 16, 2011,which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' answer and counterclaims andordered the case to inquest, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Given that defendants had been ordered on three prior occasions to produce certaindocuments, and had been expressly warned that failure to do so again would result in the strikingof their pleadings, the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in striking the pleadings, underCPLR 3126, when defendants again failed to produce the requested records (De Socio v 136 E. 56th St. Owners,Inc., 74 AD3d 606 [2010]). We note that the repeated failure of defendants to produce,despite express orders to do so, amply demonstrates wilfulness and the lack of any reasonableexcuse for such failure. Moreover, that the documents were relevant to plaintiff's defense tocertain counterclaims constitutes prejudice sufficient to warrant the particular sanction [*2]imposed. To the extent defendants failed to comply with aconditional order of preclusion, they failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse or a meritoriousdefense (see Gibbs v St. BarnabasHosp., 16 NY3d 74 [2010]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse,Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.