Shohat v Suky

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Shohat v Suky 2017 NY Slip Op 31940(U) May 25, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 151446/14 Judge: James E. d'Auguste Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/30/2017 12:04 PM 1] INDEX NO. 151446/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 201 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/30/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: ~:JAMES E.d'AUGUS_!E PART ' (_a2 Justice INDEX NO. l6\ L{Lllo/1 'f MOTION DATE _ _ __ -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. The following papers, numbered 1 to _ _ , were read on this motion to/for Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits 009 --------------------------I No(s)._ _ _ _ _ __ Exhibits-----------'-------------------- I No(s). - - - - - - - - - - - Replying Affidavits---------------------------------------- 1No(s). - - - - - - - - - - - Answering Affidavits - Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is DECIDED JN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOMPANYf NG DECISION/ORDER w C.> j:: en :::> .., e c w a:: a:: w IL. w a:: .. >- ..J ~ ..J z :::> 0 u.. en I- <( C.> w w a:: 3> (!) w z a:: en 3: 0 w _, en ..J - <( 0 C.> IL. - :::c z w 0 1- :!!E IL. a:: Oo j:: Dated: s/a.s/i l I ,.,....~~~::.:.=...::::.:..:;.:...:=..::_ 1. CHECK ONE:..................................................................... 0 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: .......................•...MOTION IS: !fl 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0 ~ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION CASE DISPOSED GRANTED 0 DENIED SETTLE ORDER 0DONOTPOST 1 of 4 0 GRANTED IN PART 0 0 OTHER SUBMIT ORDER =1 FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT C REFERENCE [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/30/2017 12:04 PM 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 201 INDEX NO. 151446/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/30/2017 SUPREl\IIE COURT OF THE STATEOF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 62 .------------~-----.---------------------------------------------------X TOl\IIAR SHOHAT, Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER Index No. 151446/14 l\llot. Seq.No. 009 -againstBENZI ON SUKY, 440 WEST 41 st LLC; ERAN SUKI, ERIC PATINO, YOSHIY AHU YOSEF PINTO, and l\IIENACHEl\II PINTO, Defendants. -------------,------.-------------------------------.:------------------X Hon. James E. d' Auguste Plaintiff Tomar Shohat's motion for an order striking the answer of defendants Benzion Suky, 440 West 4151 LLC, and Eran Suki (collectively, herein "Suky Defendants") is granted and a judgment on liability is granted in favor of Shohat against the Suky Defendants. Factual and Procedural Background Shohat served a notice for discovery andinspection dated October 7, 2016 on the Suky Defendants, to which they failed to respond. On December 5, 2016, this Court issued an order mandating the production of outstanding discovery within thirty days of the date of said order. NYSCEF Doc. No. 184. By the expiration of the thirty-day period, on January 7, 2017, the Suky Defendants failed to comply with this Court's order by supplying Shohat with the courtmandated discovery. On February 14, 2017, one month after the court-ordered discovery was due, Shohat filed _the instant motion to strike their answer. After the in~tant motion was filed, the Suky Defendants served belated discovery responses that are annexed to their opposition papers. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 195. As Shohat notes in his reply papers, the Suky Defendants did not actually produce responsive information, but simply asserted a series of objections. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 196. 2 of 4 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/30/2017 12:04 PM 3] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 201 INDEX NO. 151446/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/30/2017 Discussion The Suky Defendants willfully failed to abide by their discovery obligations despite this Court's prior order, which supports the drastic remedy of striking their answer. Seamon v. Apel, 191A.D.2d406, 406 (1st Dep't 1993) (citing Besson v. Beirne, 188 A.D.2d 330, 331 (1st Dep't 1992)); Dauriav. City of New York, 127 A.D.2d 459, 460 (1st Dep't 1987); see CEMD El. Corp. v. Mettotech LLC I, 141A.D.3d451, 453 (1st Dep~t 2016); Weissman v. 20 E. 9th St. Corp., 48 A.D.3d 242, 243 (1st Dep't 2008). Shohat submitted correspondence detailing good-faith efforts. to secure the outstanding discovery. NYSCEF Doc. No. 192. Indeed, plaintiffs counsel prophesized that when a response was eventually produced, it would essentially be meaningless: "Base~ upon [defense counsel's] prior conduct in this case, [plaintiffs counsel] expecte[ ed that the] responses; if they are ever received, will be almost meaningless, as they ha[d] been to date." Id Plaintiffs counsel further indicated that _he "cannot and do[ es] not stipulate to extend the court order and [would] make an appropriate application to the court." Id When Shohat filed the instant motion, it had been four months since his notice for ' discovery and inspection was served and over two months since this Court issued the order directing the Suky Defendants' production of discovery, at which time no responses had been · received by Shohat. The purported discovery response that was. annexed to the Suky Defendants' response is woefully inadequate to comply with the order of this Court. Notably, this is not the first time that this Court has had to deal with the Suky Defendants' efforts to avoid complying with discovery. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 169. While a minor delay in providing responses would not be a ground for striking a pleading, 'the failure to produce meaningful discovery responses after being directed to do so by the Court warrants the granting of the requested relief in this instance. See Varvitsiotes v. Pierre, 260 A.D.2d 297, 297 (1st Dep't 2 3 of 4 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/30/2017 12:04 PM 4] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 201 INDEX NO. 151446/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/30/2017 1999) ("Uncontested evidence of discovery noncompliance by defendant ... warranted the striking of his answer pursuant to CPLR 3126."). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffTomar Shohat's motion to strike defendants Benzion Suky, 440 West 41 st LLC, and Eran Suk.i's answer is granted; and it is further, ORDERED that plaintiff Tomar Shohat is granted a judgment against defendants Benzion Suky, 440 West 41 st LLC, and Eran Suki; and it is further, ORDERED that plaintiffTomar Shohat shall file a notice with the Clerk of the Court for an inquest together with a copy of this order with notice of entry; and it is further, ORDERED that plaintiff Tomar Shohat shall serve and file a copy of this order with notice of entry upon the Trial Support Clerk in the General Clerk's Office (Room 119), who is directed upon the filing of a note of issue and statement of readiness and the payment of appropriate fees, if any, to place this matter on the calendar for an inquest on damages. This constitutes the decision and order of this Court. Dated: May 25, 2017 3 4 of 4

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.