The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION This case arises out of a commercial landlord dispute over a flooding incident that allegedly resulted from negligent renovation work. Plaintiff Birds & Bubbles, NYC, LLC, was a restaurant conducting business at the property (the Premises), located at 100 Forsyth Street in New York County, which was owned by defendant 100 Forsyth, LLC. Plaintiff argues that due to the alleged negligence on the part of 100 Forsyth and/or its contractors (defendants E&J All Seasons Construction Corp. and Exsa Corp.), plaintiff was constructively evicted from the Premises, causing it to suffer damages of $1,500,000. Plaintiff now moves under CPLR 3126 to preclude further discovery and under CPLR 3212 for summary judgment on 100 Forsyth’s alleged negligence.1 100 Forsyth cross-moves to strike plaintiff’s complaint for failure to provide discovery in violation of court order or, in the alternative, to compel discovery. BACKGROUND Plaintiff and 100 Forsyth entered into a lease on or about April 15, 2014, in which plaintiff leased the lower level of commercial retail space and outdoor garden from 100 Forsyth to operate restaurant business. In February 2017, 100 Forsyth retained E&J and Exsa to perform on the Premises construction work that allegedly caused extensive flooding and mold conditions. Due to these conditions, plaintiff closed its business. Plaintiff thereafter brought this action against 100 Forsyth on or about April 12, 2017. After learning the names of the contractors, plaintiff amended its complaint to add E&J and Exsa as codefendants. E&J and Exsa failed to respond to plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff then sought and obtained default judgments against each of them. (See NYSCEF Nos. 28, 57.) Plaintiff now moves to preclude 100 Forsyth from deposing a representative of plaintiff (or from obtaining any other discovery) and to grant summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims against 100 Forsyth. 100 Forsyth cross-moves to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against it or to compel discovery. These claims are discussed in turn. DISCUSSION I. The Branch of Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking to Preclude Defendant 100 Forsyth from Obtaining Further Discovery Because this dispute involves discovery, this court lays out in detail the discovery process and exchanges between the parties. The alleged flooding accident occurred in February 2017; plaintiff filed its complaint on April 12, 2017. Plaintiff thereafter amended its complaint on May 13, 2017, and 100 Forsyth filed a verified answer on June 19, 2017. On August 2, 2017, 100 Forsyth served its first notice for discovery and inspection, demanding documents including communications between plaintiff and defendant contractors, plaintiff’s revenue and profits, and evidence reflecting the alleged flooding, leaks, and mold conditions. (Notice of Discovery, NYSCEF No. 71, at 5-7.) On September 29, 2017, in response to 100 Forsyth’s discovery demands, plaintiff’s counsel shared a Dropbox link allegedly containing “most of the larger documents.” Counsel promised to send the rest by email later. (Email, NYSCEF No. 72.) On November 26, 2017, 100 Forsyth’s counsel sent an email to plaintiff’s counsel indicating that he could not open the Dropbox documents, with the exception of the document concerning insurance information. Plaintiff’s counsel responded that he would resend the documents. (Email, NYSCEF No. 74.) On or about June 18, 2018, 100 Forsyth served plaintiff a letter demanding that plaintiff provide missing documents. A preliminary-conference order dated November 1, 2018, suggests that plaintiff failed to provide the requested documents by that date. (See Preliminary Conference Order, NYSCEF No. 76.) The November 1, 2018, conference order directed the parties to complete depositions by February 28, 2019. (Preliminary Conference Order, NYSCEF No. 63, at 2.) That did not occur. A compliance conference was held on August 28, 2019; 100 Forsyth, without explanation, did not appear at the conference. (Compliance Conference Order, NYSCEF No. 63, at 1.) The compliance-conference orders direct that all depositions and discovery for all parties be completed before October 20, 2019. (Id.) Plaintiff attempted on September 3 and September 5, 2019, to schedule a deposition of plaintiff’s witnesses for either September 16 or September 17. (Email, NYSCEF No. 66.) An attorney at 100 Forsyth’s law firm responded to the email, stating that he was not handling the case and forwarded the email to the attorney who was handling on the case. (Id.) After failing to confirm the dates with 100 Forsyth’s counsel, plaintiff informed counsel in an email on October 23, 2019, that “we will move accordingly and proceed with the case in the coming weeks.” (Id.) On or about October 29, 2019, 100 Forsyth, apparently having not received the documents that plaintiffs were directed by the preliminary conference order to provide, sent a letter to plaintiff to demand them, and sent a follow-up letter the next day. (Letter, NYSCEF Nos. 81, 82.) In plaintiff’s reply papers on this motion, counsel asserts that “not only were responses provided but additional guidance on how to find documents was given to defendants, and additional documents were added”; and counsel criticizes the attorney for 100 Forsyth for failing to include in its motion papers responsive communications from plaintiff to defendant. (Affirmation in Opposition to the Cross-Motion of Defendant 100 Forsyth, NYSCEF No. 85 at
