In the matter before this Court, the Plaintiff has brought an action for breach of contract, seeking recovery of a balance allegedly owed on the Defendant's revolving credit account. The Defendant, having filed his timely answer on October 24, 2023, served upon the Plaintiff a set of interrogatories and document demands, properly seeking information material to the defense of the claim. Yet, the Plaintiff remained silent, without reason or excuse, prompting the Defendant to act not once, but twice in good faith, sending letters on December 12, 2023, and January 24, 2024, in an effort to elicit compliance. Despite these opportunities for rectitude, the Plaintiff let nearly six months pass without any response. This behavior leaves us to decide whether such inaction rises to the level of willful and contumacious conduct warranting the dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim as an appropriate discovery sanction.

The law is well-settled in this regard. Under CPLR 3126, it is within the discretion of this Court to impose sanctions where discovery has been willfully ignored. Indeed, we need not first compel compliance through formal court order (Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler, 75 AD3d 219 [1st Dept 2010]). The pertinent issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiff's conduct can be deemed "willful and contumacious"—a term of grave import, to be applied only where a party's deliberate inaction demonstrates a disregard for the discovery process. This Court has [*2]found, in earlier cases, that repeated failures to comply with discovery demands, especially without reasonable excuse, will give rise to the inference of such willfulness (Mears v Long, 149 AD3d 823, 823-824 [2d Dept 2017]).

Turning to the record at hand, we find it speaks unequivocally. Here, the Plaintiff's silence was not momentary or inadvertent, but rather persistent and defiant in the face of two separate demands, each affording ample time for compliance; moreover, this is in an action that the Plaintiff bank initiated on its own behalf. The Defendant's discovery requests were tailored to the very core of the issues in this case and the responses to which establish the merits of whether the underlying debt alleged is valid and enforceable. The Plaintiff, a financial institution, is presumed to be in control of the documents necessary to prosecute its claim. To stand mute in such circumstances, especially after repeated entreaties, evinces not mere negligence, but a willful and contumacious disregard of the Defendant's rights under our system of civil procedure.

Today, this Court expands the doctrine expressed in Mears to hold that where, as here, a financial institution initiates a breach of contract action and maintains continuous prosecution of the action, its failure to respond to properly served discovery demands that are directly relevant to the defense, may, after two good-faith efforts at resolution by the opposing party, be deemed willful and contumacious. A party seeking to avail itself of this Court's resources cannot simply ignore the rules governing discovery and proceed as if its claim alone dictates the course of litigation. Thus, the Plaintiff's conduct, ignoring discovery demands critical to the defense of the action, twice prompted, and still met with silence, is found by this Court to be willful and contumacious. The Defendant's entitlement to discovery is not a mere procedural nicety; it is a substantive right upon which the integrity of our judicial process depends. Where a party, particularly one in control of the evidentiary record, refuses to comply, it forfeits its claim to the relief sought.

Accordingly, pursuant to CPLR 3126, this Court sanctions the Plaintiff for its willful and contumacious disregard of the Defendant's discovery requests, and the instant action is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is so ordered.