Delaney v. Automated Bread Corp.
James J. Delaney v. Automated Bread Corp.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
*678 The penalty of striking a pleading for failure to comply with an order of disclosure (CPLR 3126 [3]) is an extreme one which is warranted only where the failure has been willful or contumacious (Bassett v Bando Sangsa Co., 103 AD2d 728 ; Oppenheim & Macnow v Worth, 103 AD2d 687 ; Joseph v Roller Castle, 100 AD2d 839 ; Battaglia v Hofmeister, 100 AD2d 833 ; cf. Baumann v Dee, 100 AD2d 504 ). Under the facts and circumstances of this . case, we conclude that defendant should be granted one final opportunity to comply with the discovery order within the time we have prescribed (Joseph v Roller Castle, supra).
In the event defendant fails to so comply, its answer shall be stricken. Titone, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.