Emigrant Bank v. Rosabianca

Summary

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order declining to strike Secured Lending Corp.'s answer and counterclaim for alleged noncompliance with a conditional dismissal order. The court held that the order's decretal paragraph did not mirror language in its body and upheld the motion court's discretionary direction requiring a more particularized discovery response.

Holdings

1. Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to strike Secured Lending Corp.'s answer and counterclaim and instead directing Secured Lending Corp. to provide a more particularized response to plaintiff's demands.
2. The perceived inconsistency between the decisional and decretal parts of the order could be corrected on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to strike Secured Lending Corp.'s answer and counterclaim for alleged noncompliance with the January 7, 2019 conditional dismissal order.
2. Whether the inconsistency between the body and decretal paragraph of the January 7, 2019 order could be corrected on appeal.

Disposition

affirmed