Category: CPLR

CPLR 3119

CPLR 3119. Uniform interstate depositions and discovery

Matter of 91 St. Crane Collapse Litig., 2018 NY Slip Op 016512018 NY Slip Op 01651 [1st Dept 2018]

CPLR 3119, which adopted the Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act, provides a mechanism for disclosure in New York for use in an action that is pending in another state or territory within the United States (Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32 [2014]), not the other way around. Thus, it is not applicable in this case, in which parties to an action pending in New York seek discovery from out-of-state witnesses. In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the relief sought since the moving defendants failed to show that the testimony they seek is unrelated to diagnosis and treatment and is the only avenue of discovering the information sought (see Tuzzolino v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 135 AD3d 447 [1st Dept 2016]; Ramsey v New York Univ. Hosp. Ctr., 14 AD3d 349, 350 [1st Dept 2005]).

Court is not a weedwhacker

Sears Roebuck & Co. v Vornado Realty Trust, 2018 NY Slip Op 01421 [1st Dept 2018]

Nothing in the record suggests that defendants acted willfully, contumaciously, or in bad faith, warranting the drastic remedy of striking the answer (see Henderson—Jones v City of New York, 87 AD3d 498, 504 [1st Dept 2011]). Indeed, defendants produced responsive documents to requests that were the subject of plaintiff's motion, as shown by their affirmation in support of the first cross motion, of which this Court takes judicial notice (see Yuppie Puppy Pet Prods., Inc. v Street Smart Realty, LLC, 77 AD3d 197, 202 [1st Dept 2010]). Plaintiff is not entitled to confidential information about the interrelationship and ownership of defendants. Moreover, defendants submitted responses to plaintiff's 86 interrogatories, and, as the majority of their responses to the interrogatories in dispute were proper, the court was not obligated to "prune" the interrogatories for plaintiff (see Lerner v 300 W. 17th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 232 AD2d 249, 250 [1st Dept 1996]).

A desperate attempt to avoid discovery [CPLR 3126, 3103]

Compare with Donohue v Fokas, 112 AD3d 665 [2d Dept 2014] (""[T]he payment or rejection of claims is a part of the regular business of an insurance company. Consequently, reports which aid it in the process of deciding which of the two indicated actions to pursue are made in the regular course of its business. Reports prepared by insurance investigators, adjusters, or attorneys before the decision is made to pay or reject a claim are thus not privileged and are discoverable, even when those reports are mixed/multi-purpose reports, motivated in part by the potential for litigation with the insured") and  National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v TransCanada Energy USA, Inc., 114 AD3d 595 [1st Dept. 2014] ("Documents prepared in the ordinary course of an insurer's investigation of whether to pay or deny a claim are not privileged, and do not become so merely because [the] investigation was conducted by an attorney") (internal quotes omitted).

Prior Appellate history: Ural v Encompass Ins. Co. of Am., 97 AD3d 562 [2d Dept 2012]

With respect to the parties' discovery issues, CPLR 3101 (a) broadly mandates "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." This provision is liberally interpreted in favor of disclosure (see Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 NY2d 952, 954 [1998]; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]; Matter of Skolinsky, 70 AD3d 845 [2010]; Riverside Capital Advisors v First Secured Capital Corp., 292 AD2d 515 [2002]). However, the discovery sought must be relevant to the issues at bar, with the test employed being "usefulness and reason" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d at 406). Regarding an entire set of discovery demands which are "palpably improper in that they are overbroad, lack specificity, or seek irrelevant or confidential information, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it" (Bell v Cobble Hill Health Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d 620, 621 [2005]). "The burden of serving a proper demand is upon counsel, and it is not for the courts to correct a palpably bad one" (id. at 621 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the plaintiff's discovery demands included production of Encompass's entire claim file for the subject water damage. The plaintiff asserts that Encompass only produced part of the claim file. In response, Encompass asserts that it withheld only those parts of the claim file that were produced in anticipation of litigation and thus were protected by work product privilege (see Veras Inv. Partners, LLC v Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, 52 AD3d 370 [2008]). However, the party asserting the privilege that material sought through discovery was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation or constitutes attorney work product bears the burden of demonstrating that the material it seeks to withhold is immune from discovery (see Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294 [1969]) by identifying the particular material with respect to which the privilege is asserted and establishing with specificity that the material was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation (see Chakmakjian v NYRAC, Inc., 154 AD2d 644, 645 [1989]; Crazytown Furniture v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 145 AD2d 402 [1988]). Here, Encompass's attorney's conclusory assertions were insufficient to satisfy this burden (see Bombard v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 647, 648 [2004]; see also Agovino v Taco Bell 5083, 225 AD2d 569 [1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel Encompass to produce the documents contained in the plaintiff's claim file to the extent of directing Encompass to provide the Supreme Court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3122; Clark v Clark, 93 AD3d 812 [2012]), and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents.

 

Ural v Encompass Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 NY Slip Op 01350 [2d Dept 2018]

The underlying facts of this case are summarized in the decision and order of this Court on a prior appeal in this action (see Ural v Encompass Ins. Co. of Am., 97 AD3d 562). On the prior appeal, this Court reinstated the plaintiff's causes of action to recover damages for unfair trade practices under General Business Law § 349 and for violation of Insurance Law § 2601, which prohibits unfair claim settlement practices. This Court determined that the defendants Encompass Insurance Company of America and Encompass Insurance Company (hereinafter together Encompass) were required to produce the documents contained in the plaintiff's claim file to the extent of directing Encompass to provide the Supreme Court with a "detailed privilege log" of documents claimed to be exempt from disclosure based upon a privilege or as work product for litigation (Ural v Encompass Ins. Co. of Am., 97 AD3d at 567). This Court further determined that the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel Encompass to comply with certain discovery demands because the demands were overbroad, lacked specificity, or sought irrelevant information, but declined to grant a protective order (see CPLR 3103).

After depositions of various witnesses, the plaintiff served Encompass with a third notice for discovery and inspection which made specific references to the deposition testimony in seeking, inter alia, various documents and other material. Encompass then moved for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) with respect to the third notice for discovery and inspection, contending that the plaintiff was attempting to obtain, in numerous instances, information and documents that the Supreme Court and this Court had deemed to be palpably improper. The plaintiff cross-moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) to strike Encompass's verified answer and for leave to enter a default judgment against it for failure to comply with the plaintiff's outstanding discovery demands in the third notice for discovery and inspection and for failure to produce for in camera inspection the "detailed privilege log" which this Court, on the prior appeal, had directed Encompass to produce.

The Supreme Court denied Encompass's motion pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) for a protective order, and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) to strike Encompass's verified answer and for leave to enter a default judgment against it to the extent of conditionally striking certain portions of the verified answer and precluding Encompass from offering certain evidence at trial if Encompass failed to comply with the plaintiff's outstanding discovery demands from his third notice for discovery and inspection and produce the detailed privilege log for in camera inspection.

Pursuant to CPLR 3103(a), the Supreme Court may issue a protective order precluding disclosure that is palpably improper in that it seeks irrelevant and/or confidential information, or is overly broad and burdensome (see Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 54 AD3d 386, 387; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531). Contrary to Encompass's contention, the plaintiff's third notice for discovery and inspection was not palpably improper or overly broad and burdensome. Unlike the first two notices for discovery and inspection, the third notice for discovery and inspection provided specific references to deposition testimony, details, and time parameters, and sought information material and necessary to the pending causes of action (see Yoshida v Hsueh-Chih Chin, 111 AD3d 704). Accordingly, Encompass's motion pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) for a protective order against the plaintiff's third notice for discovery and inspection was properly denied.

Further, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for relief pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) based upon Encompass's failure to comply with the prior order of this Court directing it to produce a detailed privilege log for in camera inspection (see Morales v Zherka, 140 AD3d 836; Padovano v Teddy's Realty Assoc., Ltd., 31 AD3d 514, 515). Examination of the detailed privilege log in camera is necessary before a determination of whether certain items demanded in the third notice of discovery and inspection should in fact be disclosed. If such a log does not exist, then Encompass should so state to the Supreme Court as the reason for failing to produce it (see CPLR 3120[1][I]; Crawford v Burkey, 124 AD3d 1184; Romeo v City of New York, 261 AD2d 379; Corriel v Volkswagen of Amer., 127 AD2d 729, 731). However, if such a log does not exist, Encompass cannot claim that the items demanded were privileged.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for relief pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) for failure to comply with the balance of the plaintiff's third notice for discovery and inspection, as there has been no clear showing that Encompass's lack of compliance with the third notice for discovery and inspection was willful and contumacious (see Dimoulas v Roca, 120 AD3d 1293; Barnes v City of New York, 43 AD3d 1094; Patel v DeLeon, 43 AD3d 432, 432-433). The items demanded in the third notice for discovery and inspection should be produced, and sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 should only be considered if Encompass continues to resist disclosure.

 

Considering that this firm usually takes a "rules are rules" position in Supreme Court, its position on appeal is hard to reconcile.

5015

Shmuklyer v Feintuch Communications, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00908 [1st Dept. 2018]

"A defendant seeking to vacate a default under [CPLR 5015(a)] must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing and answering the complaint and a meritorious defense to the action" (Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A. C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). Moreover, "section 5015(a) does not provide an exhaustive list as to when a default judgment may be vacated. Indeed, the drafters of that provision intended that courts retain and exercise their inherent discretionary power in situations that warranted vacatur but which the drafters could not easily foresee" (Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68 [2003]).

The court providently exercised its discretion in finding that defendant presented a reasonable excuse, based on counsel's family crises, the particulars of which were explained in defendant's papers, occurring at the time the answer was due. It is noteworthy too that plaintiff's counsel, who had communicated several times with defendant's counsel, and which communications made it clear that defense counsel was unaware of the pending default motion, chose to remain silent, thereby contributing to defendant's default in opposing it. Additionally, contrary to plaintiff's argument, the record does not support any finding of willful delay or neglect. Plaintiff has also waived any appellate review of defendant's meritorious defense, by failing to make any mention of such defense until plaintiff's reply brief (see Ginsberg v Rudey, 280 AD2d 267 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 711 [2001]; Blech v West Park Presbyt. Church, 102 AD3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2013]). In any event, defendant demonstrated a sufficient a meritorious defense to the court below.

Tax Returns. Deposition of non-party attorney.

Weingarten v Braun, 2018 NY Slip Op 01130 [1st Dept 2018]

While New York has a broad policy of discovery, favoring disclosure, disclosure of tax returns is disfavored because of their confidential and private nature, requiring the party seeking to compel production to make "a strong showing of necessity and demonstrate that the information contained in the returns is unavailable from other sources" (Williams v New York City Hous. Auth., 22 AD3d 315, 316 [1st Dept 2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, plaintiff failed to identify the particular information the tax returns of Braun will contain and its relevance to the claims made here. How Braun put the allegedly improperly obtained property to use, e.g., by allegedly claiming a loss on his personal taxes, is extraneous to whether the property was, in fact, improperly obtained. Similarly, plaintiff has failed to detail what information the nonparty attorney could offer in the proposed deposition that would be relevant to this claim (see Ortiz v Rivera, 193 AD2d 440 [1st Dept 1993]).

325(d)’oh

Caffrey v North Arrow Abstract & Settlement Servs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01043 [2nd Dept 2018]

We address two related issues concerning subject matter jurisdiction that have not previously been addressed by our Court. The first is whether a court with subject matter jurisdiction, which pursuant to CPLR 325(d) has erroneously transferred an action to a lower court lacking subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, may retransfer the action to itself after the lower court has already tried the matter and rendered a judgment. The second question is whether, upon a retransfer of the action to a court with subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 325(b), the court may adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the lower court and thereupon substitute the lower court's judgment with its own judgment. We answer the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative.

* * *

We have considered, but reject, the notion that Judge Marrazzo had "in effect" self-transferred the action back to Supreme Court for trial, rendering the trial and judgment jurisdictionally valid. The decision rendered after the trial reflected the Civil Court's index number (300061-2011) rather than the original index number of the Supreme Court (102525/09). An "in effect" retransfer at the time of trial is inconsistent with the filing of a posttrial judgment in the Civil Court, and inconsistent with Caffrey's later motion to retransfer the action to Supreme Court, which was contested by the parties and decided by the Supreme Court on its merits.

We suspect, giving the Civil Court the credit and good faith it is due, that the instant matter may have been selectively assigned to Judge Marrazzo, recognizing that the plaintiff's complaint interposed equitable causes of action and further recognizing that Judge Marrazzo had been granted Acting Supreme Court status. Yet, given the limiting language of that designation in the Administrative Order, we cannot hold that the Administrative Order cured the subject matter jurisdictional infirmity afflicting the action as a result of its erroneous transfer to the Civil Court under CPLR 325(d). Subject matter jurisdiction is a concept that is absolute—it either exists in its entirety or it does not exist at all. A defect in subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by any party or by the court itself, and subject matter jurisdiction cannot be created through waiver, estoppel, laches, or consent (see Financial Indus. Regulatory Auth., Inc. v Fiero, 10 NY3d 12, 17; Matter of Rougeron, 17 NY2d 264, 271; Strunk v New York State Bd. of Elections, 126 AD3d 777, 779; Matter of Hart Family, LLC v Town of Lake George, 110 AD3d 1278, 1280; Burke v Aspland, 56 AD3d 1001, 1003; Morrison v Budget Rent A Car Sys., 230 AD2d 253, 260; Matter of Anthony J., 143 AD2d 668, 668-669). Similarly, defects in subject jurisdiction may never be waived (see Nash v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 22 NY3d 220, 229; Manhattan Telecom. Corp. v H & A Locksmith, Inc., 21 NY3d at 203; Editorial Photocolor Archives v Granger Collection, 61 NY2d 517, 523; Lacks v Lacks, 41 NY2d at 74-75). While Judge Marrazzo, by virtue of his designation as an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, would have been authorized to preside over the trial of this matter had it been pending in the Supreme Court, the same cannot be said for the trial in the Civil Court where the Administrative Order had no administrative or substantive relevance.

Where subject matter jurisdiction is concerned, courts, including our own, may not cut corners. As a matter of both constitutional adherence and public policy, the Appellate Division must guard against courts acting outside of their subject matter jurisdiction, even if they do so unwittingly, in good faith, or in furtherance of judicial economy. Accordingly, we hold that the duties of an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court directed to matters pending in the Supreme Court [*7]operate only as to actions and proceedings pending in that particular court, and not for cases litigated elsewhere. In other words, a judge of the Civil Court with a limited Acting Supreme Court Justice designation has no authority in an action pending at the Civil Court to exceed the nonmonetary subject matter jurisdiction of that court, regardless of whatever more expansive authority he or she may possess for other assignments pending in the Supreme Court.

Further, since the Civil Court was without jurisdiction to try the instant matter, rendering the trial and judgment void, its findings of fact and conclusions of law cannot as a matter of comity, res judicata, law of the case, or otherwise, be recognized by the Supreme Court upon its CPLR 325(b) removal of the action, and cannot provide a basis for the Supreme Court judgment presently on appeal.

Facebook Discovery

Forman v Henkin, 2018 NY Slip Op 01015 [2018]

New York discovery rules do not condition a party's receipt of disclosure on a showing that the items the party seeks actually exist; rather, the request need only be appropriately tailored and reasonably calculated to yield relevant information. Indeed, as the name suggests, the purpose of discovery is to determine if material relevant to a claim or defense exists. In many if not most instances, a party seeking disclosure will not be able to demonstrate that items it has not yet obtained contain material evidence. Thus, we reject the notion that the account holder's so-called "privacy" settings govern the scope of disclosure of social media materials.

That being said, we agree with other courts that have rejected the notion that commencement of a personal injury action renders a party's entire Facebook account automatically discoverable (see e.g. Kregg v Maldonado, 98 AD3d 1289, 1290 [4th Dept 2012] [rejecting motion to compel disclosure of all social media accounts involving injured party without prejudice to narrowly-tailored request seeking only relevant information]; Giacchetto, supra, 293 FRD 112, 115; Kennedy v Contract Pharmacal Corp., 2013 WL 1966219, *2 [ED NY 2013]). Directing disclosure of a party's entire Facebook account is comparable to ordering discovery of every photograph or communication that party shared with any person on any topic prior to or since the incident giving rise to litigation — such an order would be likely to yield far more nonrelevant than relevant information. Even under our broad disclosure paradigm, litigants are protected from "unnecessarily onerous application of the discovery statutes" (Kavanaugh, supra, 92 NY2d at 954).

Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all rule at either of these extremes, courts addressing disputes over the scope of social media discovery should employ our well-established rules — there is no need for a specialized or heightened factual predicate to avoid improper "fishing expeditions." In the event that judicial intervention becomes necessary, courts should first consider the nature of the event giving rise to the litigation and the injuries claimed, as well as any other information specific to the case, to assess whether relevant material is likely to be found on the Facebook account. Second, balancing the potential utility of the information sought against any specific "privacy" or other concerns raised by the account holder, the court should issue an order tailored to the particular controversy that identifies the types of materials that must be disclosed while avoiding disclosure of nonrelevant materials. In a personal injury case such as this it is appropriate to consider the nature of the underlying incident and the injuries claimed and to craft a rule for discovering information specific to each. Temporal limitations may also be appropriate — for example, the court should consider whether photographs or messages posted years before an accident are likely to be germane to the litigation. Moreover, to the extent the account may contain sensitive or embarrassing materials of marginal relevance, the account holder can seek protection from the court (see CPLR 3103[a]). Here, for example, Supreme Court exempted from disclosure any photographs of plaintiff depicting nudity or romantic encounters.

Plaintiff suggests that disclosure of social media materials necessarily constitutes an unjustified invasion of privacy. We assume for purposes of resolving the narrow issue before us that some materials on a Facebook account may fairly be characterized as private [FN5]. But even private materials may be subject to discovery if they are [*5]relevant. For example, medical records enjoy protection in many contexts under the physician-patient privilege (see CPLR 4504). But when a party commences an action, affirmatively placing a mental or physical condition in issue, certain privacy interests relating to relevant medical records — including the physician-patient privilege — are waived (see Arons v Jutkowitz, 9 NY3d 393, 409 [2007]; Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287 [1989]). For purposes of disclosure, the threshold inquiry is not whether the materials sought are private but whether they are reasonably calculated to contain relevant information.

Applying these principles here, the Appellate Division erred in modifying Supreme Court's order to further restrict disclosure of plaintiff's Facebook account, limiting discovery to only those photographs plaintiff intended to introduce at trial [FN6]. With respect to the items Supreme Court ordered to be disclosed (the only portion of the discovery request we may consider), defendant more than met his threshold burden of showing that plaintiff's Facebook account was reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence. At her deposition, plaintiff indicated that, during the period prior to the accident, she posted "a lot" of photographs showing her active lifestyle. Likewise, given plaintiff's acknowledged tendency to post photographs representative of her activities on Facebook, there was a basis to infer that photographs she posted after the accident might be reflective of her post-accident activities and/or limitations. The request for these photographs was reasonably calculated to yield evidence relevant to plaintiff's assertion that she could no longer engage in the activities she enjoyed before the accident and that she had become reclusive. It happens in this case that the order was naturally limited in temporal scope because plaintiff deactivated her Facebook account six months after the accident and Supreme Court further exercised its discretion to exclude photographs showing nudity or romantic encounters, if any, presumably to avoid undue embarrassment or invasion of privacy.

In addition, it was reasonably likely that the data revealing the timing and number of characters in posted messages would be relevant to plaintiffs' claim that she suffered cognitive injuries that caused her to have difficulty writing and using the computer, particularly her claim that she is painstakingly slow in crafting messages. Because Supreme Court provided defendant no access to the content of any messages on the Facebook account (an aspect of the order we cannot review given defendant's failure to appeal to the Appellate Division), we have no occasion to further address whether defendant made a showing sufficient to obtain disclosure of such content and, if so, how the order could have been tailored, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, to avoid discovery of nonrelevant materials.[FN7]

In sum, the Appellate Division erred in concluding that defendant had not met his threshold burden of showing that the materials from plaintiff's Facebook account that were ordered to be disclosed pursuant to Supreme Court's order were reasonably calculated to contain evidence "material and necessary" to the litigation. A remittal is not necessary here because, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff neither made a claim of statutory privilege, nor offered any other specific reason — beyond the general assertion that defendant did not meet his threshold burden — why any of those materials should be shielded from disclosure.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division order insofar as appealed from should be reversed, with costs, the Supreme Court order reinstated and the certified question answered in the negative.

Sufficient Start [3211(d)]

Robins v Procure Treatment Ctrs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00464 [1st Dept 2018]

Plaintiff made a "sufficient start" in establishing that New York courts have jurisdiction over PPM under CPLR 301 and 302(a)(1) to be entitled to disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3211(d) (see Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]). With regard to general jurisdiction, codified in CPLR 301, it is not clear whether PPM's "affiliations with the State [New York] are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the [] State" (Daimler AG v Bauman, __ US __, 134 S Ct 746, 761 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]). However, the record contains a State filing in which PPM identified itself as having a principal place of business in Manhattan — "tangible evidence" upon which to question PPM's claims to the contrary (see SNS Bank v Citibank, 7 AD3d 352, 354 [1st Dept 2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

3211(a)(8) and 3211(e)

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Acevedo, 2018 NY Slip Op 00407 [2d 2018]

In December 2014, more than 60 days after service of the defendant's verified answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and more than 60 days after the plaintiff served the defendant with a verified reply to the counterclaims, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction based on improper service and to cancel the notice of pendency against the subject property. The plaintiff opposed the defendant's motion, arguing, among other things, that the defendant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction based on improper service by failing to move for judgment on that ground within 60 days [*2]after serving the answer. This motion was marked off the calendar.

Subsequently, the defendant moved to restore his prior motion to the calendar, and thereupon, to grant the motion. The plaintiff opposed the motion, again arguing, inter alia, that the defendant waived this defense pursuant to CPLR 3211(e). The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. The plaintiff appeals.

Although the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to restore, the court should not have thereupon granted his prior motion.

"[A]n objection that the summons and complaint . . . was not properly served is waived if, having raised such an objection in a pleading, the objecting party does not move for judgment on that ground within sixty days after serving the pleading, unless the court extends the time upon the ground of undue hardship" (CPLR 3211[e]). Here, the defendant failed to move for judgment on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction based on improper service within 60 days after his answer was served. Additionally, he failed to made an adequate showing of undue hardship that prevented the making of the motion within the requisite statutory period. Although the plaintiff, appearing by its former attorneys, wrote to the defendant's attorney, stating that the verified answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims was rejected, this Court has indicated that a "purported rejection of the defendants' answer did not extend the 60-day time limit" (Dimond v Verdon, 5 AD3d 718, 719). Further, less than one month after the defendant's verified answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims was served, the plaintiff's responsive pleading was served. Under these circumstances, the defendant waived his objection to personal jurisdiction based on improper service (see id. at 719; see also Warsowe Acquisition Corp. v DeNoble, 116 AD3d 949, 950; Reyes v Albertson, 62 AD3d 855, 855).

CPLR 3126

Crupi v Rashid, 2018 NY Slip Op 00406 [2d 2018]

The nature and degree of a penalty to be imposed under CPLR 3126 for discovery violations is addressed to the court's discretion (see Dimoulas v Roca, 120 AD3d 1293, 1295; Zakhidov v Boulevard Tenants Corp., 96 AD3d 737, 739). The general rule is that the court will impose a sanction commensurate with the particular disobedience it is designed to punish and go no further than that (see Zakhidov v Boulevard Tenants Corp., 96 AD3d at 739; Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, C3126:8). Before a court invokes the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, or even of precluding all evidence, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious (see Zakhidov v Boulevard Tenants Corp., 96 AD3d at 739; Cianciolo v Trism Specialized Carriers, 274 AD2d 369, 370).

Here, on this record, there is no evidence demonstrating either that the incarcerated defendant, Syed Rashid, willfully and contumaciously failed to be deposed, or that his attorney failed to secure his deposition (see Brodsky v Amber Ct. Assisted Living, LLC, 147 AD3d 810; Zakhidov v Boulevard Tenants Corp., 96 AD3d at 738; Patel v DeLeon, 43 AD3d 432, 432-433; Cianciolo v Trism Specialized Carriers, 274 AD2d at 370).