Martel v. ChupkaMartel v. Chupka
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs failed to respond to the defendants’ discovery demands for almost one year, violated a so-ordered stipulation directing that their depositions be conducted on a certain date, and violated a court order which, inter alia, warned them that the complaint would be dismissed if they did not serve a bill of particulars within 10 days of service of the order upon them. The plaintiffs made no attempt to provide discovery responses until after the defendants’ second motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
The plaintiffs’ wilfulness can be inferred from their repeated
Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.