Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=46096 Justice Knipel PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT alleged that on Oct. 4, 1998, after being assaulted, he was unlawfully arrested and confined with his assailant, who attacked him again with a razor. He claimed that defendant City made no responses to April 2, 2001 discovery demands and that, in response to a Jan. 2, 2002 order directing the City’s production of arrest reports, 911 tapes and other items, the City served little more than an arrest report. The court’s May 6, 2003 order directed the City’s compliance with preliminary and compliance conference orders directing production. Opposing plaintiff’s motion to strike its answer, the City claimed that the delay was attributable to the diversity of documents sought from the police and correction departments and the district attorney. The court struck the City’s answer, finding that its wilful, contumacious conduct could be inferred from its repeated failures to comply with court orders directing disclosure and inadequate excuses offered to justify those defaults.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.