| Xina v City of New York |
| 2004 NY Slip Op 09284 [13 AD3d 440] |
| December 13, 2004 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Helen Xina, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and New York City Transit Authority, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), entered December 11, 2003, which granted the plaintiff's motion to strike its answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking the answer of the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter Transit Authority) for failure to produce a Transit Authority employee for a deposition, despite two so-ordered stipulations directing that the deposition be conducted. The willful and contumacious character of the Transit Authority's failure to produce the witness for a deposition can be inferred from its repeated failure to comply with so-ordered stipulations requiring the appearance of the witness, and the lack of an adequate excuse for not producing the witness (see Kroll v Parkway Plaza Joint Venture, 10 AD3d 633 [2004]; Beneficial Mtge. Corp. v Lawrence, 5 AD3d 339, 340 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 602 [2004]). Smith, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.