150 Centreville LLC v. Lin Associates Architects

Civil Practice

New York Law Journal


Justice Martin Ritholtz

In 2007, plaintiffs commenced a litigation against the Lin defendants alleging architectural malpractice and breach of contract. In 2009, defendants served a set of interrogatories accompanied by a notice for discovery and inspection of documents, including those referred to in the interrogatories. Plaintiffs have still failed to furnish any answers to the interrogatories or supply any documents to the discovery demands. At no time did plaintiffs complain that the interrogatories were inappropriate or that the notice for discovery and inspection sought documents that were irrelevant. The court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal of the action, noting the fact that it was three and one-half years after the service of relevant discovery demands and plaintiffs have still failed to preserve and safeguard the documents necessary to provide responses to defendants during discovery. The court added that any result other than dismissal of the complaint and the action would be prejudicial to defendants, was an affront to justice, and would subvert the repeated calls of both the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division for obedience to discovery orders.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202588941002

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.