10 N.Y.3d 827 (2008)
A party’s failure to preserve an argument for appeal and comply with discovery orders can result in the striking of their answer and preclusion from introducing evidence to defeat the plaintiff’s cause of action, even if there is evidence of potential fraud.
Summary
Lamont Wilson, a minor, sued Safway Steel Products for negligence after allegedly being injured by falling debris from scaffolding erected by Safway. Safway failed to comply with multiple discovery demands and court orders, leading to its answer being stricken. Safway subsequently presented evidence suggesting the injury was caused by an air gun pellet, not falling debris. The court granted an inquest on damages and denied Safway’s motions to vacate the default, arguing that Safway was precluded from introducing evidence to defeat the plaintiff’s claim due to its prior non-compliance with discovery. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Safway’s failure to preserve its CPLR 3215(f) argument and its prior discovery misconduct justified precluding it from challenging the claim’s validity.
Facts
On June 18, 1999, Lamont Wilson was walking under scaffolding assembled by Safway Steel Products when he was struck in the eye by a small metal object. Wilson initially told hospital staff he thought he was struck by broken glass.
Wilson filed suit against Safway alleging negligence due to a dangerous condition on the premises.
Over several months, Safway failed to comply with formal and informal discovery demands and a preliminary conference order.
Procedural History
The trial court issued a self-executing conditional order directing Safway to comply with discovery by July 1, 2002, or its answer would be stricken. Safway failed to comply, and its answer was stricken.
After the answer was stricken, a co-defendant’s expert opined that the object removed from Wilson’s eye appeared to be a lead air-gun pellet. Wilson discontinued his claims against all other defendants.
The trial court granted Wilson’s motion for an inquest against Safway and denied Safway’s motion to dismiss.
Safway unsuccessfully moved three times to vacate the order striking its answer. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of these motions.
After the inquest, the Appellate Division reduced the damages award but otherwise affirmed.
Issue(s)
Whether Safway’s failure to raise its argument regarding CPLR 3215(f) in prior motions precluded it from raising the argument on appeal.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider evidence suggesting that Wilson’s injury was caused by an air gun pellet and not by falling debris from Safway’s scaffolding.
Holding
No, because Safway failed to preserve the argument in its prior motions. Had Safway raised the argument earlier, Wilson may have been able to supply the documents referenced in CPLR 3215(f).
No, because Safway’s answer was stricken as a result of its failure to comply with discovery, the court correctly held that Safway was precluded from introducing any evidence at the inquest that would defeat the plaintiff’s cause of action.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of preserving arguments for appeal, stating that this requirement