![]() Oral Cancer Prevention Intl., Inc., 138 A.D.3d 722 (2d Dept. City of New York, 33 A.D.3d 560 (1st Dept. Faxton Children’s Hospital & Rehabilitation Center, 227 A.D.2d 457, 458 (2d Dept. 1989) (holding that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a preclusion order requiring him to file a verified and responsive bill of particulars entitled the defendants to a dismissal of the entire complaint) Neveloff v. New York appellate courts have repeatedly granted preclusive relief under CPLR 3126 as a means of addressing recalcitrant parties who fail to comply with discovery demands and/or discovery orders. While striking a pleading is a drastic remedy, the courts in New York will do so when the non-compliant party demonstrates a willful or contemptuous pattern of behavior. A motion under CPLR 3126 may result in an order against the recalcitrant party, including preclusion of evidence in support of, or in opposition to, a claim or defense, or striking all or part of a pleading. When a party deliberately fails to comply with discovery demands and/or discovery orders, the requesting party may file a motion to compel compliance pursuant to Section 3124 of the Civil Practice Rules and Procedure (“CPLR”) or a motion to preclude evidence pursuant to CPLR 3126. ![]() ![]() Such non-compliance can lead to penalties and sanctions, especially when the non-compliance arises from deliberate behavior. Litigants and their attorneys who fail to comply with discovery demands and/or discovery orders do so at their peril. Anti-Retaliation Under The SEC And CFTC Whistleblower ProgramsĬourt Upholds Striking Answer As Sanction For Failure To Comply With Discovery Demands And Discovery Orders Print Article.The Confidentiality Protections Under The SEC/CFTC Whistleblower Program.The Whistleblower’s Information Must Lead To a Successful Enforcement Action. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |