Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
NORA ALMONTASER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SELLAH ALMONTASER, DECEASED, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT, v. ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. (CLAIM NO. 123266.) (APPEAL NO. 1.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this medical malpractice action, claimant appeals from an order granting defendant's motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3126. We affirm. “The nature and degree of a sanction to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is within the discretion of the court, and the striking of a pleading is appropriate only upon a clear showing that a party's failure to comply with a discovery demand or order is willful, contumacious or in bad faith” (Mosey v County of Erie, 117 AD3d 1381, 1384 [4th Dept 2014]). In support of its motion, defendant established that, for the nearly 10 years that the claim was pending, claimant failed repeatedly to respond to discovery demands and disregarded orders regarding discovery, and her failure to comply was willful, contumacious or in bad faith (see Peterson v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 174 AD3d 1386, 1388 [4th Dept 2019]). The burden thus shifted to claimant to establish a reasonable excuse for her conduct (see WILJEFF, LLC v United Realty Mgt. Corp., 82 AD3d 1616, 1619 [4th Dept 2011]), and she failed to meet that burden (see Peterson, 174 AD3d at 1388). We therefore conclude that the Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion and dismissing the claim.
Entered: June 27, 2025
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 358
Decided: June 27, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)