Giraldo v. Highmark Ind., LLCGiraldo v. Highmark Ind., LLC
Camacho Mauro Mulholland, LLP, New York, NY (Kathleen M. Mulholland and Rachel M. Smith of counsel), for appellant.
Buttafuoco & Associates, PLLC, Woodbury, NY (Ellen Buchholz and Shawn Alfano of counsel), for respondents.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Sublink, Ltd., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pam Jackman Brown, J.), dated May 1, 2018. The order granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike the answer of that defendant to the extent of precluding it from offering evidence at trial.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The motion court has broad discretion to determine the nature and degree of the sanction to be imposed pursuant to
Here, the willful and contumacious character of the appellant‘s conduct can be inferred from its repeated failures to produce a representative for a deposition. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike the appellant‘s answer to the extent of precluding it from offering evidence at trial (see Rogers v Howard Realty Estates, Inc., 145 AD3d 1051; Commisso v Orshan, 85 AD3d 845).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., DUFFY, BARROS and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court