Muhammad v. Ramadan

212 N.Y.S.3d 435

Imam Askia MUHAMMAD, et al., respondents,

v.A. Yusuf RAMADAN, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—February 22, 2024

June 5, 2024

Davis, Ndanusa, Ikhlas & Saleem, LLP (Biolisi Law Group, P.C., New York, NY [Steven Alexander Biolisi], of counsel), for appellants.

Capell Barnett Matalon & Schoenfeld LLP, New York, NY (Joseph Milano of counsel), for respondents.

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., LINDA CHRISTOPHER, LARA J. GENOVESI, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the defendants A. Yusuf Ramadan, Qasim Abdul-Mani, Abdul Rashid, and Muhammad’s. Temple of Islam, Inc., now known as Masjid Nuriddin, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Frederick D.R. Sampson, J.), dated September 2, 2021. The order granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike those defendants’ answer.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty against, among others, the defendants A. Yusuf Ramadan, Qasim Abdul-Mani, Abdul Rashid, and Muhammad’s Temple of Islam, Inc., now known as Masjid Nuriddin, Inc. (hereinafter collectively the defendants). The plaintiffs thereafter moved pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer for the defendants failure to comply with court orders relating to discovery and to respond to the plaintiffs’ discovery demands. In an order dated September 2, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion. The defendants appeal.

[1, 2] "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 willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed’ " (Aha Sales, Inc. v. Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 110 A.D.3d 1019, 1019, 973 N.Y.S.2d 791, quoting CPLR 3126; see Morales v. Valeo, 218 A.D.3d 676, 678, 192 N.Y.S.3d 638). "When a party fails to comply with a court order and frustrates the disclosure scheme set forth in the CPLR, it is within the court’s discretion to strike or dismiss a pleading" (Empire Enters. I.J.J.A., Inc. v. Daimler Buses of N. Am., Inc., 172 A.D.3d 819, 820, 101 N.Y.S.3d 70; see Sansone v. Syracuse Univ., 202 A.D.3d 851, 852, 158 N.Y.S.3d 873). "The striking of a pleading may be appropriate where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands or court-ordered discovery was the result of willful and contumacious conduct" (Allstar Elecs., Inc. v. DeLuca, 188 A.D.3d 1121, 1122, 134 N.Y.S.3d 432; see Sansone v. Syracuse Univ., 202 A.D.3d at 852, 158 N.Y.S.3d 873). "Willful and contumacious conduct may be inferred from a party’s repeated failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, coupled with inadequate explanations for the failures to comply, or a failure to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time" (Sansone v. Syracuse Univ., 202 A.D.3d at 852, 158 N.Y.S.3d 873 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Morales v. Valeo, 218 A.D.3d at 678, 192 N.Y.S.3d 638).

[3] Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’...