Aha Sales, Inc. v. Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 110 A.D.3d 1019 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Aha Sales, Inc. v. Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 110 A.D.3d 1019 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
52 citation events (52 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Houghton v. Piperaro, 2026 NY Slip Op 05290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014 2020 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1019 Determining willfulness for discovery sanctions under CPLR 312615 citing cases“pursuant to cplr 3126, a court may impose discovery sanctions, including the striking of a pleading or preclusion of evidence, where a party 'refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed”11 citing courts quote it · Neutral (citing treatments of this passage)
  • Houghton v. Piperaro, 2026 NY Slip Op 05290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published
    Commercial, Inc. , 209 AD3d at 722 , quoting Aha Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc. , 110 AD3d at 1019).
  • Noh Soon Park v. Food Bazaar Supermarket, 2026 NY Slip Op 05108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published
    Commercial, Inc. , 209 AD3d 721, 722, quoting Aha Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc. , 110 AD3d 1019, 1019).
  • Matter of Selma V. Kelter Trust, 244 A.D.3d 1214 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025).published
    "Pursuant to CPLR 3126, a court may impose discovery sanctions, including the striking of a pleading or preclusion of evidence, where a party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court…
  • Modeste v. 606 W. 57 LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 30351(U) (N.Y. Sup. Kings 2024).unpublished 2 cites
    To invoke the drastic remedy of preclusion, the court must determine that the offending party's lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious (Aha Sales, Inc. v. Creative Bath Products, Inc., 110 A.D.3d at 1…
  • Guardado v. K.B.G. Com., Inc., 209 A.D.3d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2022).published 2 cites
    "The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed under CPLR 3126 is a matter generally left to the court's discretion" ( Aha Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods. , Inc., 110 AD3d at 1019).
  • Gelin v. New York City Tr. Auth., 189 A.D.3d 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2020).published
  • Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Jackson, 192 A.D.3d 813 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2021).published
  • Henry v. Atlantis Rehab. & Residential Healthcare Facility, LLC, 194 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2021).published
  • Gorbatov v. Tsirelman, 206 A.D.3d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2022).published
  • Gregorian v. New York Life Ins. Co., 211 A.D.3d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2022).published
Show 5 more citing cases
At page 1020 appellant’s willful and contumacious conduct in failing to meaningfully respond to those demands may be reasonably inferred from the record (see H.R. Prince,…1 citing caseopening of page *1020 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • JNG Constr., Ltd. v. Roussopoulos, 170 A.D.3d 1136 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2019).published 2 cites
    Realty, LLC , 144 AD3d 631, 632 ; Aha Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc. , 110 AD3d at 1020; Carabello v Luna , 49 AD3d 679, 680 ; Moog v City of New York , 30 AD3d 490, 491 ).
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Aha Sales, Inc.
v.
Creative Bath Products, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 30, 2013.
Published opinion
110 A.D.3d 1019
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages in quantum meruit for services rendered and for unjust enrichment, the defendant Creative Bath Products, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated November 29, 2011, which granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude it from, inter alia, presenting certain evidence at trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, a court may impose discovery sanctions, including the striking of a pleading or preclusion of evidence, where a party “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed.” The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed under CPLR 3126 is a matter generally left to the court’s discretion (see Zakhidov v Boulevard Tenants Corp., 96 AD3d 737, 739 [2012]). To invoke the drastic remedy of preclusion, the court must determine that the offending party’s lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious (see Moog v City of New York, 30 AD 3d 490, 490 [2006]; Assael v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 4 AD3d 443, 443 [2004]). The willful or contumacious character of a party’s conduct can be inferred from the party’s repeated failure to comply with discovery demands or orders without a reasonable excuse (see Arpino v F.J.F. & Sons Elec. Co., Inc., 102 AD3d 201, 210 [2012]; Montemurro v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 94 AD3d 1066, 1066 [2012]).

Here, the plaintiff made a clear showing that the defendant Creative Bath Products, Inc. (hereinafter the appellant), repeatedly failed to comply with its discovery demands. Further, the[*1020] appellant’s willful and contumacious conduct in failing to meaningfully respond to those demands may be reasonably inferred from the record (see H.R. Prince, Inc. v Elite Envtl. Sys., Inc., 107 AD3d 850, 851 [2013]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the appellant from, inter alia, presenting certain evidence at trial. Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.