Ricardo Estrella v 20 Bruckner, LLC, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
New York civil procedure—discovery sanctions and defaults; good-faith meet-and-confer requirements before motion practice.
Granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer on default and later denied defendants’ motion to renew/vacate and to deny the strike; dismissed reargument.
The order striking defendants’ answer was vacated; upon vacatur, plaintiff’s motion to strike was denied; the matter was set for an expedited compliance conference.
The October 9, 2024 order was entered on defendants’ default and failed to reflect oral argument or an adjournment request; defendants showed a reasonable excuse (calendaring error amid insurance coverage dispute) under CPLR 2005 [allows the court to excuse delay or default due to law office failure] and a meritorious opposition because plaintiff’s affirmation of good faith did not show the requisite in-person or telephone consultation as required by Uniform Rules for Trial Cts (22 NYCRR) §§ 202.7(a), (c) and 202.20-f(a)-(b) [require counsel to confer in good faith, in person or by telephone, to resolve discovery disputes before seeking court intervention].
Background
In this Bronx County action, plaintiff moved to strike defendants’ answer for discovery noncompliance after the note of issue was filed. Defendants did not submit written opposition and the court granted the motion on October 9, 2024, characterizing it as unopposed. Defendants later moved for leave to reargue/renew and, alternatively, to vacate the default, deny the motion to strike, vacate the note of issue, and schedule further discovery, asserting a calendaring error during an insurance coverage dispute and challenging plaintiff’s noncompliant good-faith affirmation. The court denied relief in a July 18, 2025 order.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer on default (Oct. 9, 2024). In a subsequent order (July 18, 2025), it denied defendants’ motion for leave to reargue/renew and declined to vacate the default or the strike, leaving the note of issue and certificate of readiness intact.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from the denial of reargument as nonappealable and affirmed the denial of renewal (no prior written opposition; no new facts). However, it modified to vacate the October 9, 2024 default order, denied plaintiff’s motion to strike upon vacatur (finding a reasonable excuse and meritorious opposition due to plaintiff’s deficient good-faith affirmation), and directed an immediate compliance conference to complete outstanding post-note discovery on an expedited schedule.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that defaults may be vacated upon a showing of reasonable excuse and meritorious defense under CPLR 2005 [allows the court to excuse delay or default due to law office failure]. It underscores strict enforcement of the Uniform Rules’ meet-and-confer requirements—email and voicemail alone generally do not satisfy the obligation to confer in person or by telephone before moving on discovery disputes. Also clarifies that denials of reargument are nonappealable and that renewal requires new facts that would change the outcome and a prior submission.
In New York discovery practice, a motion to strike requires a robust, rule-compliant good-faith affirmation showing actual conferral; where a default stems from law office failure and a meritorious opposition exists, courts will vacate default sanctions and direct expedited compliance instead.