On June 10, 2026, the Second Department issued a decision in Watts v. Espinoza, 2026 NY Slip Op. 03697, holding that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enforce a default provision in a discovery stipulation, explaining:
Under almost any given state of facts, where to enforce a stipulation would be unjust or inequitable or permit the other party to gain an unconscionable advantage, courts will afford relief. Such relief is appropriate where a party has substantially complied with the stipulation and where the default is de minimis. Here, the defendant’s default of the stipulation was minor in nature when measured against the harsh result that would be obtained upon literal enforcement of the default provision in the stipulation. Upon granting leave to renew and reargue, which the plaintiff does not challenge on appeal, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining, in effect, that the defendant substantially complied with the terms of the stipulation by providing the relevant documents that were requested. The defendant also expeditiously withdrew its objections to the discovery demands, curing any default of the stipulation. Under these circumstances, the court was not required to enforce a technical default of the stipulation where it would result in the drastic remedy of striking the defendant’s answer.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).