In R* v City of New York, the Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed a lower court's decision regarding discovery compliance in a tort action against the City.
The plaintiff, R, had moved to either strike the defendants' answer for failure to comply with discovery requests or compel full compliance with the demands. The New York County Supreme Court denied this motion, citing that R had not first conferred with the court as required by its Part Rules.
The AD1 unanimously reversed this decision, holding that the lower court's reasoning was flawed because judicial approval cannot be a prerequisite for filing motions. The appellate court remanded the matter to the Supreme Court to determine whether the defendants' conduct was willful and contumacious and to consider the merits of the discovery motion.
Importantly, the appellate court refrained from exercising its own discretion to compel compliance or strike the answer, emphasizing that these determinations are best left to the motion court, unless its discretion was improperly exercised. Since the lower court had not actually addressed the substance of the discovery dispute, the appellate court declined to substitute its judgment and instead directed the Supreme Court to review the motion on its merits.
Sharing is caring ....
# # #
DECISION