Summary
This Appellate Division decision reviews multiple lower court orders in a personal injury action where Uber defendants failed to comply with court-ordered discovery. The court affirmed orders granting the plaintiff's motions to strike the defendants' answers pursuant to CPLR 3126 due to willful and contumacious non-compliance, and affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appeal regarding a previously vacated order was dismissed as academic, and one bill of costs was awarded to the plaintiff.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motions to strike the Uber defendants’ answers under CPLR 3126.
- Whether the trial court properly denied Uber’s motion for summary judgment.
Holdings
- The court properly granted the motions to strike because the Uber defendants willfully and contumaciously failed to comply with court‑ordered discovery.
- The court properly denied summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the Uber defendants’ liability.
Key quotations
“The Supreme Court has broad discretion in supervising disclosure and in resolving discovery disputes.” (216 AD3d at 44)
“Before imposing the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, there must be a clear showing that a party's failure to comply with discovery is willful and contumacious.” (208 AD3d at 834)
Factual background
Shawn Tyson was injured when a vehicle driven by Alpha Diallo struck him. Tyson sued Diallo and several Uber entities, alleging Diallo was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
Procedural history
The plaintiff sued for personal injuries alleging the defendant driver was an employee of Uber. The trial court granted the plaintiff's first and second motions to strike the Uber defendants' answers under CPLR 3126 and denied Uber's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff later obtained a reargument and the court vacated the second strike order and granted it anew. The Uber defendants appealed the orders.