Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1988–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
BDS Copy Inks, Inc. v. International Papergreen2 sentences2023"Because the remedy of preclusion is drastic, especially where, as here, it has the effect of preventing a party from asserting its claim, it is reserved for those instances where the offending party's lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious" ( BDS Copy Inks, Inc. v International Paper , 123 AD3d 1255, 1256-1257 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Adamski v Schuyler Hosp., Inc. , 36 AD3d 1198, 1199 [3d Dept 2007]). 2018Thus, the remedy employed by Supreme Court for plaintiff's failure to adequately comply with its discovery obligations does not amount to the drastic and severe remedy of "dismissal of the complaint with prejudice" ( U.S. Bank N.A. v McCrory , 137 AD3d 1517, 1518 [2016]; accord U.S. Bank N.A. v Polanco , 126 AD3d 883, 885 [2015]), which would have "'the effect of preventing a party from asserting its claim'" ( BDS Copy Inks, Inc. v International Paper , 123 AD3d at 1256-1257 , quoting D.A. | 3 | 3 |
D.A. Bennett LLC v. Cartzgreen2 sentences2018Bennett LLC v Cartz , 113 AD3d 945, 946 [2014]). 2014Bennett LLC v Cartz, 113 AD3d at 946 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
Duma v. Edgargreen2 sentences2014However, the remedy of preclusion is drastic, especially where, as here, it has the effect of preventing a party from asserting its claim (see Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524, 525 [1994]), and is therefore “reserved for those instances where the offending party’s lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious” (Matter of Duma v Edgar, 58 AD3d 1085, 1086 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Kumar v Kumar, 63 AD3d 1246, 1248 [2009]; see CPLR 3126 [2]). 2014However, the remedy of preclusion is drastic, especially where, as here, it has the effect of preventing a party from asserting its claim (see Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524, 525 [1994]), and is therefore “reserved for those instances where the offending party’s lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious” (Matter of Duma v Edgar, 58 AD3d 1085, 1086 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Kumar v Kumar, 63 AD3d 1246, 1248 [2009]; see CPLR 3126 [2]). | 2 | 2 |
Kumar v. Kumargreen2 sentences2014However, the remedy of preclusion is drastic, especially where, as here, it has the effect of preventing a party from asserting its claim (see Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524, 525 [1994]), and is therefore “reserved for those instances where the offending party’s lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious” (Matter of Duma v Edgar, 58 AD3d 1085, 1086 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Kumar v Kumar, 63 AD3d 1246, 1248 [2009]; see CPLR 3126 [2]). 2014However, the remedy of preclusion is drastic, especially where, as here, it has the effect of preventing a party from asserting its claim (see Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524, 525 [1994]), and is therefore “reserved for those instances where the offending party’s lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious” (Matter of Duma v Edgar, 58 AD3d 1085, 1086 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Kumar v Kumar, 63 AD3d 1246, 1248 [2009]; see CPLR 3126 [2]). | 2 | 2 |
Vatel v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2014However, the remedy of preclusion is drastic, especially where, as here, it has the effect of preventing a party from asserting its claim (see Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524, 525 [1994]), and is therefore “reserved for those instances where the offending party’s lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious” (Matter of Duma v Edgar, 58 AD3d 1085, 1086 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Kumar v Kumar, 63 AD3d 1246, 1248 [2009]; see CPLR 3126 [2]). 2014However, the remedy of preclusion is drastic, especially where, as here, it has the effect of preventing a party from asserting its claim (see Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524, 525 [1994]), and is therefore “reserved for those instances where the offending party’s lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious” (Matter of Duma v Edgar, 58 AD3d 1085, 1086 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Kumar v Kumar, 63 AD3d 1246, 1248 [2009]; see CPLR 3126 [2]). | 2 | 2 |
Taylor v. Vassar Collegegreen2 sentences2009Whether laches should apply depends on the particular facts of each case (see Matter of Taylor v Vassar Coll., 138 AD2d 70, 73 [1988]), and the Board’s determination in this regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Manticoff v American Bldg. 2003The equitable doctrine of laches can be applied to estop a party from asserting a defense when there has been an inexcusable delay in raising the defense of noncoverage together with actual injury or prejudice, i.e., “a change of position, intervention of equities, loss of evidence or other disadvantage” (75A NY Jur 2d, Limitations and Laches § 369; see Matter of Kobre v Camp Mogen Avraham, 293 AD2d 893, 895 [2002]; Matter of Taylor v Vassar Coll., 138 AD2d 70, 73 [1988]). | 2 | 2 |
Adamski v. Schuyler Hospital, Inc.green1 sentence2023"Because the remedy of preclusion is drastic, especially where, as here, it has the effect of preventing a party from asserting its claim, it is reserved for those instances where the offending party's lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious" ( BDS Copy Inks, Inc. v International Paper , 123 AD3d 1255, 1256-1257 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Adamski v Schuyler Hosp., Inc. , 36 AD3d 1198, 1199 [3d Dept 2007]). | 1 | 1 |
U.S. Bank National Association v. McCrorygreen1 sentence2018Thus, the remedy employed by Supreme Court for plaintiff's failure to adequately comply with its discovery obligations does not amount to the drastic and severe remedy of "dismissal of the complaint with prejudice" ( U.S. Bank N.A. v McCrory , 137 AD3d 1517, 1518 [2016]; accord U.S. Bank N.A. v Polanco , 126 AD3d 883, 885 [2015]), which would have "'the effect of preventing a party from asserting its claim'" ( BDS Copy Inks, Inc. v International Paper , 123 AD3d at 1256-1257 , quoting D.A. | 1 | 1 |
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Polancogreen1 sentence2018Thus, the remedy employed by Supreme Court for plaintiff's failure to adequately comply with its discovery obligations does not amount to the drastic and severe remedy of "dismissal of the complaint with prejudice" ( U.S. Bank N.A. v McCrory , 137 AD3d 1517, 1518 [2016]; accord U.S. Bank N.A. v Polanco , 126 AD3d 883, 885 [2015]), which would have "'the effect of preventing a party from asserting its claim'" ( BDS Copy Inks, Inc. v International Paper , 123 AD3d at 1256-1257 , quoting D.A. | 1 | 1 |
Doherty v. Schuyler Hills, Inc.green1 sentence2017See Citibank, N.A. v Bravo, 140 AD3d at 1435 , quoting Doherty v Schuyler Hills, Inc., 55 AD3d 1174, 1176 (2008) (the answer was stricken and plaintiffs were awarded default judgment on the merits based on defendant’s willful failure to comply with disclosure demands), and citing Hesse Constr., LLC v Fisher, 61 AD3d 1143, 1144 (2009) (summary judgment was granted to plaintiff where defendant was unable to offer any admissible evidence due to a preclusion order); see also Du Valle v Swan Lake Resort Hotel, LLC, 26 AD3d 616 (2006) (summary judgment was properly granted to defendant who argued th | 1 | 1 |
Hesse Construction, LLC v. Fishergreen1 sentence2017See Citibank, N.A. v Bravo, 140 AD3d at 1435 , quoting Doherty v Schuyler Hills, Inc., 55 AD3d 1174, 1176 (2008) (the answer was stricken and plaintiffs were awarded default judgment on the merits based on defendant’s willful failure to comply with disclosure demands), and citing Hesse Constr., LLC v Fisher, 61 AD3d 1143, 1144 (2009) (summary judgment was granted to plaintiff where defendant was unable to offer any admissible evidence due to a preclusion order); see also Du Valle v Swan Lake Resort Hotel, LLC, 26 AD3d 616 (2006) (summary judgment was properly granted to defendant who argued th | 1 | 1 |
Du Valle v. Swan Lake Resort Hotel, LLCgreen1 sentence2017See Citibank, N.A. v Bravo, 140 AD3d at 1435 , quoting Doherty v Schuyler Hills, Inc., 55 AD3d 1174, 1176 (2008) (the answer was stricken and plaintiffs were awarded default judgment on the merits based on defendant’s willful failure to comply with disclosure demands), and citing Hesse Constr., LLC v Fisher, 61 AD3d 1143, 1144 (2009) (summary judgment was granted to plaintiff where defendant was unable to offer any admissible evidence due to a preclusion order); see also Du Valle v Swan Lake Resort Hotel, LLC, 26 AD3d 616 (2006) (summary judgment was properly granted to defendant who argued th | 1 | 1 |
Citibank, N.A. v. Bravogreen2 sentences2017See Citibank, N.A. v Bravo, 140 AD3d at 1435 , citing BDS Copy Inks, Inc. v International Paper, 123 AD3d 1255, 1256 (2014) (the remedy of preclusion is drastic, especially where it has the effect of preventing a party from asserting its claim). . 2017See Citibank, N.A. v Bravo, 140 AD3d at 1435 , quoting Doherty v Schuyler Hills, Inc., 55 AD3d 1174, 1176 (2008) (the answer was stricken and plaintiffs were awarded default judgment on the merits based on defendant’s willful failure to comply with disclosure demands), and citing Hesse Constr., LLC v Fisher, 61 AD3d 1143, 1144 (2009) (summary judgment was granted to plaintiff where defendant was unable to offer any admissible evidence due to a preclusion order); see also Du Valle v Swan Lake Resort Hotel, LLC, 26 AD3d 616 (2006) (summary judgment was properly granted to defendant who argued th | 1 | 1 |
Finchum v. Colaiacomogreen1 sentence2009“The equitable doctrine of laches can be applied to estop a party from asserting a defense when there has been an inexcusable delay in raising the defense of noncoverage together with actual injury or prejudice” (Matter of Ricciardi v Johnstown Leather, 1 AD3d 661, 663 [2003]; see Matter of Finchum v Colaiacomo, 55 AD3d 1084, 1085-1086 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Claim of Ricciardi v. Leathergreen1 sentence2009“The equitable doctrine of laches can be applied to estop a party from asserting a defense when there has been an inexcusable delay in raising the defense of noncoverage together with actual injury or prejudice” (Matter of Ricciardi v Johnstown Leather, 1 AD3d 661, 663 [2003]; see Matter of Finchum v Colaiacomo, 55 AD3d 1084, 1085-1086 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
Claim of Kobre v. Avrahamgreen1 sentence2003The equitable doctrine of laches can be applied to estop a party from asserting a defense when there has been an inexcusable delay in raising the defense of noncoverage together with actual injury or prejudice, i.e., “a change of position, intervention of equities, loss of evidence or other disadvantage” (75A NY Jur 2d, Limitations and Laches § 369; see Matter of Kobre v Camp Mogen Avraham, 293 AD2d 893, 895 [2002]; Matter of Taylor v Vassar Coll., 138 AD2d 70, 73 [1988]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co.
green
2 sentences2008We agree that “[i]t would be inequitable to preclude a party from asserting a claim under the principle of res judicata, where, as in this case, [t]he court in the first action has expressly reserved the plaintiffs right to maintain the second action’ ” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d at 349 , quoting Restatement [Second] of Judgments § 26 [1] [b]). 2000Res judicata and collateral estoppel generally deal with preclusion after judgment: res judicata precludes a party from asserting a claim that was litigated in a prior action (see, Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347 ), while collateral estoppel precludes relitigating an issue decided in a prior action (see, Continental Cas. | 2 | 2000–2008 |
Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc
green
2 sentences2019Specifically, laches is an affirmative defense, deployed to estop a party from asserting a claim ( id. ). 2019As its sine qua non is prejudice to the party against whom a claim is asserted, laches may be invoked regardless of whether the action is timely or not ( id. ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019As its sine qua non is prejudice to the party against whom a claim is asserted, laches may be invoked regardless of whether the action is timely or not (id.). -3- -4- No. 13 However, the doctrine is narrow in application and the United States Supreme Court “has cautioned against invoking laches to bar legal relief” (Petrella, 572 US at 678 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Littlejohn
green
1 sentence2017See Citibank, N.A. v Bravo, 140 AD3d at 1435 , quoting Doherty v Schuyler Hills, Inc., 55 AD3d 1174, 1176 (2008) (the answer was stricken and plaintiffs were awarded default judgment on the merits based on defendant’s willful failure to comply with disclosure demands), and citing Hesse Constr., LLC v Fisher, 61 AD3d 1143, 1144 (2009) (summary judgment was granted to plaintiff where defendant was unable to offer any admissible evidence due to a preclusion order); see also Du Valle v Swan Lake Resort Hotel, LLC, 26 AD3d 616 (2006) (summary judgment was properly granted to defendant who argued th | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Greaves v. Burlingame
green
1 sentence2017See Citibank, N.A. v Bravo, 140 AD3d at 1435 , quoting Doherty v Schuyler Hills, Inc., 55 AD3d 1174, 1176 (2008) (the answer was stricken and plaintiffs were awarded default judgment on the merits based on defendant’s willful failure to comply with disclosure demands), and citing Hesse Constr., LLC v Fisher, 61 AD3d 1143, 1144 (2009) (summary judgment was granted to plaintiff where defendant was unable to offer any admissible evidence due to a preclusion order); see also Du Valle v Swan Lake Resort Hotel, LLC, 26 AD3d 616 (2006) (summary judgment was properly granted to defendant who argued th | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Greaves v. Burlingame
green
1 sentence2017See Citibank, N.A. v Bravo, 140 AD3d at 1435 , quoting Doherty v Schuyler Hills, Inc., 55 AD3d 1174, 1176 (2008) (the answer was stricken and plaintiffs were awarded default judgment on the merits based on defendant’s willful failure to comply with disclosure demands), and citing Hesse Constr., LLC v Fisher, 61 AD3d 1143, 1144 (2009) (summary judgment was granted to plaintiff where defendant was unable to offer any admissible evidence due to a preclusion order); see also Du Valle v Swan Lake Resort Hotel, LLC, 26 AD3d 616 (2006) (summary judgment was properly granted to defendant who argued th | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Continental Casualty Co. v. Rapid-American Corp.
green
1 sentence2000Co. v Rapid-American Corp., 80 NY2d 640, 649 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Reilly v. Reid
green
1 sentence1999Thus, a rigid application of res judicata in this instance, rather than preventing plaintiff from obtaining two days in court, would unjustly “deprive him of one” (Matter of Reilly v Reid, supra, 45 NY2d, at 28 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Parsa v. State of New York
green
1 sentence1988Moreover, "[a] party contracting with the State is chargeable with knowledge of the statutes which regulate its contracting powers and is bound by them” (Parsa v State of New York, 64 NY2d 143, 147 , rearg denied 64 NY2d 885 ; see also, Matter of Parkview Assocs. v City of New York, supra). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.