Steven Suarez, appellant, v. City of New York, respondent, et al., defendant. (2026)

Submitted—November 13, 2025

DECISION & ORDER

C/

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leon Ruchelsman, J.), dated June 20, 2024.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for an extension of time to comply with an order of the same court dated February 7, 2024, directing it to produce certain documents, and certain witnesses for depositions, and denied that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer of the defendant City of New York.

ORDERED that the order dated June 20, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, in the absence of evidence of willful or contumacious conduct, the granting of the motion of the defendant City of New York and the denial of that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the City's answer was a provident exercise of discretion (see Caban v. Rzak Dev. Inc., 132 AD3d 937, 937–938;

Hoi Wah Lai v. Mack, 89 AD3d 990).

BARROS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court