In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York reversed a lower court's decision that had struck a personal injury complaint filed by Anna DeSilvo against Splen Construction, Inc. This decision, made on July 8, 2026, is significant for individuals involved in similar legal disputes, as it clarifies the standards for striking complaints in personal injury cases.
The case, DeSilvo v. Zheng (Docket No. 2024-12525), centers around a personal injury claim brought by DeSilvo against multiple defendants, including Splen Construction. The ruling affects not only DeSilvo but also sets a precedent for how courts handle complaints in personal injury cases, particularly regarding the requirements for striking a complaint.
The dispute began in September 2022 when DeSilvo filed a lawsuit against Splen Construction and other defendants, alleging personal injuries. Throughout 2023 and early 2024, DeSilvo made several motions to strike Splen's answer to her complaint, citing the company's failure to comply with discovery obligations. However, the Supreme Court denied these motions, stating that DeSilvo did not demonstrate the necessary good faith required by the court's rules.
In a series of orders issued between September 2023 and March 2024, the lower court found that DeSilvo's motions lacked sufficient basis, and the court even warned that it might hold a sanctions hearing if the motions continued. Ultimately, in March 2024, DeSilvo filed another motion to strike Splen's answer, prompting Splen to cross-move for costs and attorneys' fees, as well as to strike the complaint against it.
The Supreme Court granted Splen's request to strike the complaint and awarded costs and attorneys' fees to Splen. DeSilvo appealed this decision, arguing that the lower court had erred in its ruling.
In its ruling, the Appellate Division stated that the lower court should not have granted Splen's application to strike the complaint. The court noted, "the record on this appeal does not establish that the plaintiff refused to obey an order for disclosure or willfully failed to disclose information which the court found ought to have been disclosed." This statement highlights the court's emphasis on the importance of clear evidence before a complaint can be struck.
The judges involved in the ruling were Francesca E. Connolly, Linda Christopher, Barry E. Warhit, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez. They collectively determined that the lower court's decision was not supported by the necessary legal standards.
The Appellate Division reversed the order that struck DeSilvo's complaint and denied Splen's request. Additionally, the court awarded one bill of costs to DeSilvo, reinforcing the notion that the plaintiff had not acted in bad faith.
This ruling is important for several reasons. First, it reinforces the requirement that courts must have clear evidence of misconduct before striking a complaint. It protects plaintiffs from having their cases dismissed without sufficient grounds. The ruling also serves as a reminder that defendants cannot simply claim frivolous motions without substantial proof to support such claims.
The decision may have broader implications for personal injury cases in New York. It sets a precedent that could influence how lower courts handle similar disputes in the future. Plaintiffs can feel more secure in pursuing their claims, knowing that they have legal protections against unwarranted dismissals.
Going forward, this ruling may encourage more individuals to pursue personal injury claims, knowing that their complaints are less likely to be struck without solid justification. It could also lead to an increase in scrutiny of defendants' claims regarding plaintiffs' motions.
As for the next steps, it is unclear whether Splen Construction will seek to appeal this decision. The court's ruling has clarified the standards for striking complaints, but Splen may still have other legal avenues to explore in this case. There may also be related cases pending that could further define the legal landscape surrounding personal injury claims and the obligations of both parties in the discovery process.