Sanchez v. Uber Tech., Inc.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed an order denying Mauricio Sanchez's motion to strike Jose Chimborazo's answer or compel him to appear for a deposition. The court held that the motion was properly denied because the plaintiff's affirmation of good faith did not substantively comply with 22 NYCRR 202.7(c), including failures to identify participants in communications and annex certain emails. The court deemed the plaintiff's remaining contention academic.

Holdings

1. A discovery motion must include an affirmation of counsel's good-faith effort to resolve the dispute, and the affirmation must substantively comply with 22 NYCRR 202.7(c). Failure to provide a substantively compliant affirmation warrants denial of the motion.
2. The plaintiff's remaining contention was rendered academic in light of the court's determination affirming denial of the motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court properly denied Sanchez's CPLR 3126 motion for failure to submit an affirmation of good faith substantively complying with 22 NYCRR 202.7(c).
2. Whether Sanchez's remaining contention required a different disposition.

Disposition

affirmed