This matter involves an alleged breach of contract resulting from nursing home goods and services rendered by Plaintiff to the resident, Defendant Learline Monteleone (hereinafter "Monteleone"), and to the contractual signatory as "Responsible Party/Financial Agent," Defendant Lurleen Reban (hereinafter "Reban"). The Summons and Complaint was filed on June 23, 2015. Defendants served a Verified Answer on August 25, 2015.

The present application involves a discovery dispute, wherein Plaintiff now moves to strike the Verified Answer of Defendants. Plaintiff served its first notice for discovery and inspection on November 19, 2015. The time for Defendants to respond was 20 days after service of the notice (CPLR R. 3120 [2]), plus five days added for service by mail (CPLR R. 2103 [b] [2]), which yields a response date of December 14, 2015. However, on February 1, 2016, no response had been received and a good faith letter was sent to Defendants' counsel.

After receiving no response from Defendants' counsel, Plaintiff filed a request for a preliminary conference. Same was held on August 23, 2016, wherein a conference order was issued directing Defendant to response by September 30, 2016. On the day before responses were due, Defendants' counsel sought an extension which was granted via an amended conference order dated October 3, 2016, directing responses by November 14, 2016.

A compliance conference was held on November 15, 2016, wherein Defendants had failed to comply with the prior two orders despite requesting an extension. A new conference order was issued directing Defendants to comply with Plaintiff's outstanding disclosure demands [*2]by November 28, 2016, or Plaintiff shall file the appropriate motion.

Defendants did not serve their disclosure responses on time. On November 30, 2016, Defendants sent a single page letter with a stack of allegedly responsive documents. Plaintiff rejected same and Defendants have not revised their response.

Defendants' verified answer is stricken. Not only is the time to respond 20 days from service of the notice, but so is the time to object to disclosure responses pursuant to CPLR R. 3122 (a) (1). Defendants' first objection was after Plaintiff's request for a preliminary conference, more than eight months after service. Nor with such objection(s) was there a privilege log or explanation of what privileges were being asserted as required by CPLR R. 3122 (b).

In the Court's review of Defendants' disclosure response, same is unsatisfactory. It is a ten-word letter with an assortment of documents in no discernable order. Plaintiff's first demand is a request of any correspondence between the parties, and Defendants' first response is a picture of a foot. There is no order to the allegedly responsive documents, which is required by CPLR R. 3122 (c) ("Whenever a person is required pursuant to such notice or order to produce documents for inspection that person shall produce them as they are kept in the regular course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request." [emphasis added]).

While the Court considered fashioning a conditional order to afford Defendants' one last opportunity to comply, the Defendants' apathetic attitude towards this Court's orders earned it no favors. Two orders were violated, one was on the verge of such fate but for the eleventh-hour adjournment request by defense counsel. "As the Court of Appeals has noted, the failure of attorneys to comply with court-ordered deadlines has increasingly become a problem in our court system" (Arpino v F.J.F. & Sons Elec. Co., Inc., 102 AD3d 201, 207 [2d Dept 2012], citing Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74, 81 [2010]). "The failure to comply with deadlines not only impair the efficient functioning of courts and the adjudication of claims, but it places jurists unnecessarily in the position of having to order enforcement remedies to respond to the delinquent conduct of members of the bar, often to the determinant of the litigants they represent" (Gibbs, 16 NY3d at 81). Further, "[c]hronic noncompliance with deadlines breeds disrespect for the dictates of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and a culture in which cases can linger for years without resolution." Thus, "[i]f the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity" (Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]).

Therefore, the Verified Answer is STRICKEN pursuant to CPLR § 3126 and 22 NYCRR § 202.27, and Defendants are deemed in DEFAULT. A new conference date is forthcoming under separate cover to schedule this matter for an inquest. Therein, the Court will permit Plaintiff's counsel to seek attorneys' fees for having to make the instant motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1.

To the extent not specifically addressed above, the parties' remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit or rendered academic.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Please note that a copy of this Decision and Order along with the original motion papers are being filed by Chambers with the County Clerk. The original Decision and Order is being returned to the prevailing party, to comply with CPLR R. 2220. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of this Rule with regard to filing, entry and Notice of Entry.

IT IS SO ORDERED.