Filatava v Rome Realty Group LLC
Annotate this CaseDecided on March 27, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. 7186-
7187 106544/07
[*1]Valiantsina Filatava, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v
Rome Realty Group LLC, Defendant-Appellant, John Doe, et al., Defendants.
Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan, LLP, New York (Michael P.
Kandler of counsel), for appellant.
Palant & Shapiro, P.C., New York (Alexander T. Shapiro of
counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered March 22, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' answer, and order, same court and Justice, entered September 28, 2011, which denied defendant Rome Realty Group's motion to renew and granted said defendant's motion to reargue, but adhered to its prior decision, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Defendant appeals from the striking of its answer as a discovery sanction pursuant to CPLR 3126. It is undisputed that defendant violated three express orders to produce documents responsive to plaintiffs' requests. More egregiously, defendant knew it had no business records of the subject premises, as it failed to retain any records when it sold the premises two months after the instant complaint was filed. Yet, it concealed this information from the court and plaintiffs for some two years. As such, there was ample evidence to support the IAS court's [*2]finding that defendant had wilfully delayed and failed to fulfill its obligations in discovery (cf. Banner v New York City Hous. Auth., 73 AD3d 502, 503 [2010]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MARCH 27, 2012
CLERK
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
