HANOVER v. SPEAKER (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered on or about September 25, 2025, which granted plaintiff's motion to strike defendants Alyssa Mancuso, O.D. and Steven Siegel, O.D.'s answer pursuant to CPLR 3126, only to the extent of issuing a conditional order precluding defendants from adducing evidence at trial in support of their defenses if they failed to produce copies of full, unredacted insurance policies issued by Lasik Insurance Company, Ltd. to LCA–Vision Inc. under Policy No. 396–PL–2020–00 and any other liability policies covering defendants or their employer for calendar year 2020, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 19, 2026, which granted plaintiff's second motion to strike defendants' answer pursuant to CPLR 3126, only to the extent of issuing a conditional order precluding defendants from adducing evidence at trial in support of their defenses if they failed to produce affirmations or affidavits from a representative of Lasik Insurance Company, Ltd. and Robert Dinga, O.D., respectively, concerning the scope of coverage provided by certain insurance policies and whether certain policies covered defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that conditional orders were appropriate and that the drastic remedy of striking the answer was not warranted (see National Convention Servs., LLC v FB Intl., Inc., 221 AD3d 462, 463 [1st Dept 2023];  Watson v. City of New York, 157 AD3d 510, 512 [1st Dept 2018] ).  While defendants could have provided the relevant insurance coverage information with greater speed and concision, they provided colorable arguments for initially redacting the insurance documents.  The provision of unredacted documents, amplified by further information defendants provided in response to the first order on appeal, demonstrate that defendants were not behaving in a “willful and contumacious” manner (Lyoussi v. Etufugh, 188 AD3d 604, 605 [1st Dept 2020].

The court also providently exercised its discretion in issuing a second conditional order, concluding that, based on defendants' efforts to comply with the discovery obligations regarding insurance coverage, their failures should not be deemed willful or contumacious and thus, the drastic remedy of striking the answer was not warranted (see Watson, 157 AD3d at 512).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.