Preview:

[*1]


Decided on February 6, 2013
Supreme Court, Queens County

16481/2007
For Plaintiff: Sean Wright, P.C., by Sean Wright, Esq., 37-63 76th St., Jackson Heights, New York 11372
For Defendant: Zetlin & De Chiara, LLP, by Lori Samet Schwarz, Esq., 801 Second Ave., New York, New York 10017
Martin E. Ritholtz, J.
The questions involved in this action are whether there should be any consequences to plaintiffs who commenced a litigation, waged for several years, but failed to preserve and safeguard the documents necessary to provide responses to defendants during discovery, and what ramifications and/or sanctions should flow from [*2]the failure. This opinion also raises novel issues regarding the issuance of attorney's fees under Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator, governing the award of costs and the imposition of financial sanctions for frivolous conduct in civil litigation.
I. THE FACTS
The facts could be condensed as follows: in 2007, the plaintiffs 150 Centreville, LLC, and DeMartino Building Company, Inc., whose principal is Frank DeMartino ("DeMartino") served and filed a summons and complaint against Lin Associates Architects PC and Emily Lin (collectively referred to as "Lin" or the "Lin Defendants"), alleging architectural malpractice and breach of contract.
A. The Complaint of October 23, 2007
According to the complaint, the contract between the parties was entered into during 2001 and the malpractice occurred at some point up to 2004, when the project agreed to was still incomplete. The complaint, dated October 23, 2007, over five years ago, alleged many design defects that resulted in both the rejection of the original plans to build a multi-building residential development and the loss of needed financing for the project. Significantly, the complaint sought an amount to be determined at trial, but no "less than $400,000.00, plus interest."
B. The Preliminary Conference Order of April 22, 2009
Justice David Elliot signed a Preliminary Conference Order on April 22, 2009. Deadlines for discovery were set, including Examinations Before Trial to be held in August, 2009. A Compliance Conference before this Court was scheduled for September 8, 2009.
C. The Lin Defendants' Discovery Demands of June 15, 2009
On or about June 15, 2009, the Lin Defendants served a set of interrogatories accompanied by a notice for discovery and inspection of documents, including those referred to in the interrogatories. The interrogatories contained 23 relevant items of demanded information, often with subparts. The accompanying notice for discovery and inspection, also dated June 15, 2009, sought the documents, papers, and records that were to be identified in the expected answers to the aforementioned interrogatories. This discovery notice listed 27 categories of pertinent documents to be produced. Plaintiffs failed to furnish any answers to the interrogatories or supply any documents to the aforementioned discovery demands. To date, plaintiffs still have not furnished any [*3]answers or documents in this litigation that is over five years old.
At no time did the plaintiffs move for a protective order. They never complained that the interrogatories were inappropriate, harassing, vexatious, blunderbuss, or prolix, or that the notice for discovery and inspection sought documents that were irrelevant.
This Court's review of the exhibits and the document demands, in fact, confirms the reasonableness of scope of the set of interrogatories and document demands. The questions sought go to the heart of the plaintiffs' contentions regarding the alleged provisions of the contract, meetings with persons from the New York City Department of Buildings, the claims of architectural malpractice, and the alleged damages sustained by the plaintiffs.
D. The Court's Compliance Conference Order of September 8, 2009
In a Compliance Conference Order, dated September 8, 2009, this Court required the plaintiffs to supply answers to the aforementioned interrogatories and document demand within 30 days. The Court further required the plaintiffs to serve their note of issue and certificate of readiness by December 17, 2009. The plaintiffs violated said order, and failed to serve either answers to the defendants' set of interrogatories or records in response to the defendants' document demand.
E. This Court's Short Form Order of December 14, 2009
By short form order dated December 14, 2009, the defense motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with discovery was granted without opposition. The Court's order stated:
It appears that plaintiffs have failed to comply with defendants' discovery demands in accordance with the Preliminary Conference Order, dated April 22, 2009 and the Compliance Conference Order, dated September 8, 2009.
Under the circumstances herein, plaintiffs' complaint against the defendants is dismissed pursuant to CPLR

Download 2013_23038.pdf

New York Law