Bellerose Dental, P.C. v Liberty Universal Corp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Bellerose Dental, P.C. v Liberty Universal Corp. 2018 NY Slip Op 33626(U) April 18, 2018 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 15248/14 Judge: Allan B. Weiss Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] fl~( 14 0 12! Shor t Form Order NEv/ YORK SUPREME COURT ·· QUEENS COUNTY Present: Honorable, ALLAN B. WEISS IAS PART 2 Jus.t i ce BELLEROSE DE~T·AL, p. c .. I Index No.: 15248/ 14 ?laintiff, Motion Date: 4/13/18 - aga inst- LIBERT Y UNiVERSAL CORP., a/k/a LIBERTY UNIV ERSAL INC., RO:-ffiN MATATOV, ATLANT IS DENT ISTRY , .P.C. and JULIA ABEND, De'fendants. The fo llowing papers numbered 1 t o 9 read on this mption b y plai nt iff for an Order restoring the action to t he trial c alendar purs ua nt to CPLR 340 4, compelling the d~fend a nt s Liber ty Univ er sal Corp. , a/k/a Liberty Universal Inc. and Roman Matato~ (the defendants) ·to provide copi es of t he taM retur ns set forth in t ile So Ordered !?tip.ulation -c;!at ed November 15 , 201?, to pro.quce copi es of t he transcript of the p laintiff's depositio.n conducted by t he defendants and directing t hat defendant s to appear for a depo si t ion and for a conditional orde r s tr iki ng th~ defen dants' answer or precluding them fr om submitting evidence at tri a l . PAPERS NUMBERED Not ice of Motion-Affidavits-Ex hibits . ... .... .. . Affida"'.its-Exhibi t~ . . . ....... . .. . .... . . Rep! yin.g Affidavits... . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ......... . .n.n~~·ie ring 1 - 4 !) - ·7 8 - 9 Upo n the for·egoin·g papers it is o'r dered th.a t this mot ion is dete rmined ~s follows. The Note of Issue in th is ac tion wa s vacated on May 9 , 2b17 t; o a ll ow th~ parti~.s to complete dis.cpve ry . . 'J'.hus , th~ act .i on is. not subj·ect to restoration pu.rsua nt to CPLR 34011 . inas.m.uch as .t he ·a cti on was no.t "mad;ed of(" the t rial :c alendar, but r.athe r", .the Ndti? of rs·s ue was vacated (see l.opez v. Imperi al ·Oenv·e r.y Serv ice , Inc, 282 A.D~d 190 !20 01 )lv to appea l dism_issed 9 6. l'.lY2d 937 i2 00 1 ] ). Vacatur~ of t he No te of Issue results in retuFni~g t he ac tion tQ pre - note pf issue s tatus (see Bilkho v Ro0sevelt Sau a re . L LC , 1 5 7 AD 3d 8 il 9 ! 2018 I l . Prn:ec:: q/14'2019 [* 2] m <:V.01<Al Fl ~~\A·10N 1'4 OPPCSl"ION P1~t Th us , Lh e ,I;> ranc h Uo't25 ot th e mo t ion 1·1hi c li i s , j n e f f ec t, a mot,i.o n to va cate t he ''dispos ed " ma rking i s grcnted (s e e n ) l kho v Ro osP.ve lt So u a re , l.LC , s u p ra) . The cle r k is direc ted t o r e sto r e t h e ac ti.o n t o a c ti ve sta t us . t ~ r est o re t h e action to ac t i v e s t atu s a nd Th.e re mainder of th e moti o n i s ciet e·rmincd a s fol low s . \'/h e n a p arty f ai l s t ·o comp ly wi t h a c o u r t o r der a nd frus t r a .t e s th e ,disc l o s ure sc.h e me se t fo r th i n the CPL-ri', i L i.s wi th in t h e court's d i scret ion t o stri ke the " p leadin gs or par.ts t h ereof " (GPLR 3126 [ 3) ) ~s a s a nctio n agains t s uch p a rt y (see Kihl v Pf ef f er, 94 NY2d 118 , 12 2 (19 99] ; Smit h v County o f Na s s a u, i38 AD3d 726, 728 [2016 ]; Sto ne v Z i n ou k ho~a, .119 AD3d 928 , 929, ( 2014); E:dHards v Pr.e .,cc tt Cn b Co r.n., 110 AD3d 671 ! 2 01 3 ) l. Ho weve r , the dra s tic r emedy of pre c l u s i on o r . s t r ildng of a pl ea d ing s ho uld no t be i mpo s e d un l e ss the r.c is a clea r s howing th~t Lhe f ailu r e to comply wit h d isco ve r y dema nds or c o ur t - o rder ed discovery is wi ll ful a n d c ont unaci o us (s ee l l a~a n v '18 - 2 4 Lua ue r S t. Re,1 ) t y , LLC, 111 AD3d 631 , G3 2 [201 6) ; Ha rris v Ci ty o f New York, 117 AD3d 790 , 7 90 ( 20 14); Br andenburo ~ Countv of Roc kl a nd Sewer Dist . # 1 , 127 AD3d 680, 68 1 [2'015); Ax:p i no v f. J . r . & Sons Elec. Co., In c . , 102 AD3d 201, 2 10 [20 1 2) .) . The will fu l a nd contumacious .chara c t e r o f a pa r t y 1 s con9uc t c a n, b.'e infe rred fr o m the party's r~p e a ted failure t o. c omply• with ~is~ov ery d emands Or orde r s witho ut a teaso n a b le excuse ( s ea Montemu rro v Me morial Sloa n-Kett e rino Ca nce r C~r. ., 9 4 AD3 d a t 1 06 6 ; Co mmi s so v Or.sha o, 85 AD3d a t 8 45 ) . "Wil lful and c o nt uma ci ou s conduct may be inf err ed fr om a p,a r ty ' s. repea t ed f a ilure t o comp·ly •1ith cour t- o r dered d i s·cove r y , ·c0upl'e d Wi th i nadequ a te ex plan~t i ons for the f a i lu re s t o ·com~l~ &r a f a il~re t o c omp ly with cour t - o rdered d i scovery :over ·a n ex tendet;l p e ri:o,d .of t i!!le " ( Gut m9n .v Cabrer a ,. 121 AD3C:: 1 0 42 , 1 04 3 [2°014) .qu_op ng . o·rge l v St e v1a.rt. Ti t. Ins·. Co.. I 91 AD3d 922 , ·92 3. [2012] I q uc;>ttn'g Roc k City ·s o und·, Inc . v Ba's lih n £, Fa r be r . LLP, 8 3 AD3d 68"5', 6~6- ~8 7 [2Qlll (1~~erhal quotatio~ ~arks d~it t •d l l se~ Arri i nd v F . J . f. ·& s .o ns. Elec. Co., I nc . , s upra at 21, 0). Th is action wa s coi'nne nced on Octdbe .r i 7 , 20 14 .. A p re liminary conf ere nc e ..was .held on June 1 5, 20 15 and a c o mp J..ianc::e; c o n f erence · on Sept ember '1, 2015. The resu i t i ng o rde .t:s f ·r o m th e co nf e r en,c~s: direc t e d th e parties t.o. appea r for depositions·. o n· May · :9, 201:? . the No.te of Issue was vacated t o a i low .t he ·p·a r t ie s c o inp leliie. disco ve r y. On No~embe r 15 , 20 16 a l~n g~h y c on f er~nce .wa s held t o r e solve the discove ry issue s rai sed i n pla i n t i ff 's and defe nd a nt s', Atlantis Dentis t ry a nd Abend' s moti·ons. Attor neys ( d f a l l part~ ~ s appeared a t t h e conf e rence . Th e s tip)1l a ti o n to ' - 2- Prn~ec 1 1114/201~ [* 3] 1 !24'\':')~ 4 Af Fl:tMATION II~ O??OSITICN prov ide d th a t, inter alia, Liberty Un iversa l d eferidants wo uld prod uce tax returns ~nd appe~r for a deposit i on. The stipulation was So Orde r ed by the court. Th~ Liberty Universal de fendants have fa ~led to produ ce tax retu rn s as proVided i n the Nove~bcr JS , 2016 ~o Ordered Stipul ation nor have they appeared f or . a ~epos lt ion. I n opposi~ion t o the motion the defendant s assert th a t the tax returns are. n~t rele\iant to tile a ct ion and that they s hould nbt be. c~~~e lled to app.ar for a deposi i ion becau se of the exte ns i ve amount of time tha~ ha s pa~ sed s ince t h~ discovery time line s et for this acti.o"n. Th e def~ridants' a·rguments are \/ithout me r i t. The ex.t e nsive in this action is in no small part t he r esult of d ef.e nd·a.nt s 1 ref usal t.o p rovide dis cove~y, to :t imely ··c.o ndu c t '"" t .he deposi t l o n of: the p-lain.ti£f a nd re fu s al to appea r f9r· a depos ition. The defenda.n ts' willful non-:cornpliance. ~s ampl y derrons trated by the.i r failure t o comply wi,th. p.rior cou.rt Orders and in pa rt icula r Zara Javakov aff irmat. i on an~ e~mail on March 6, 2018 t o the' defendants' attorney, in whi·ch she absolutely ref.fused t6 p rod uce her clients f~r a deposition on t h~ tjrounds th~ t " ... th e matter is stricken and 1•e are year s . o u.tside of the discov ery d eadlin~." d~la y Co nt rary to counsel's c l aim, only t he N o t~ of Issue n ot the "mat te r " was stricken. Cpunsel' s u ndis~uted di~ re~ard .of t he cour t' s o rder of November 15, 2016 demon·s~rate s t he defendants' will fu l a nd contu.m a.cious, conduct wa rrar.1 t:ing stri.l: il')g c;>,f ~ h eit: answer . Howe v~r, in vi.eH of ·the strong p ublic poH cy of reso l y:in;g disp ut e s or:i the mer:..its 1;he defendan t s , Libe r t ·y Uni~~rsal CorP, . , a/~/ a Liberty Unive.rsal Inc. and Roman Mat a t o v shall appea r . for ·a deposition on June 4, 2018 at 10:00 a.m ~ a t Diamon~ Gourt R.e porting, 89-00 Sutphin. Boulevard , Jai:naica -, New York. Th e re shall b~ ·no adj o~rnment of the deposi ti·on and i t ~~al~ .9R.n.~?,_n~u~ ~ay t o. day until comple~ed. I n addition, defendants sha.11 pr·o duce· cop ies of" the .corpora·t.e· .ctefenda'nt-' .s corporate t a>: t .e tu.rns f·o r ·the. period :se...t fort h in the November lS, 2016 so Ordered St ipulat~on ~1ithin )0 d·ays o f the. date of· this Ord er · or provide an ·affidavit by a pers on with personal kno1ile.d ge as to th·e reas on f6r the n o npr9ductiop. The affidavit sh9ul~ inc~u~e ~et ~ ~~s ~~ch ~s t ~e basi s for the affiant's knowledge , thei r fam1l 1ar 1 ty with the ~efe nd ancs' record keeping prac tices and l o c a tion s , the n a tur~ of -3- [* 4] 1!14 ir.'J~ • ,.FF :u .A7tOtl I~~ C P?. Sl''"toN Plgt: 17 O' 12!1 the search conducted , whether a search was conducted in every l oca ti on where the records were l ikely to be found ~nH if np such docu me nt s o r records \-1ere mad.e , why it was n9t mac;i,e (see Henderson-Jones v City of New York, 87 AD3d 498, 505 [2011 ); Rivera -I rby v City of New Yo rk, 71 AD3d 482, 483 [2010 ) ). If t he de.fondants fai l to a ppea r for a depos'i tion as provided herein th eir answer is stricken without ~he need for a furt he r Order .. The defendan ts shall serve t he plaintiff with a copy of the plaintiff' 's . ·deposition testimony wi thin l'O days of the date of entr y of this Order. Th e action may be restor~ d to the trial ca1e·1'i'dar and note o f i ssue fil e d in accordanc e ·1 ith the Order of Judge Sc_h4Jrn?.n .d ated. Ma y 9, 2·011 . a new A c o py of th is' Order is bei ng ·mai'led to the· attorneys for t he pa rL ies. Da ted: April Oft' Sa I ~' 2018 .... .lb,............ . · J.·s.c. -1- Pr n~ • 111..no1e

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.