Sanders Equities LLC v Maldonado 2025 NY Slip Op 30694(U) March 3, 2025 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: Index No. 605681/2022 Judge: Sharon M.J. Gianelli is the rare story of an apparently pro-se attorney defendant having his answer stricken in a legal malpractice case.

“By the Court’s most recent Decision and Order, dated October 7,2024, and entered October g,2cl24 (Mot. Seq. No. oo4; Attachment *r), the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to strike, but granted Plaintiffs leave to re-apply should Defendants Maldonado and the Firm fail to comply with the Court’s Decision and Order directing Defendants Maldonado and the Firm to fully comply with all outstanding discovery concerning this matter within thirfy (go) days from the date of entry of the October 9,2c.24 Decision and Order. Plaintiffs have filed this motion (Mot. Seq. No. oo5) asserting that Defendants Maldonado and the Firm have failed to comply with the Court’s October g,2oo24 Decision and Order (Mot. Seq. No. oo4).

Defendants Maldonado and the Firm’s only response to Mot. Seq. No. oo5 is a letter from Defendant Kevin Maldonado, dated January 29,2o2S (Attachment #z), in which he requests that the Court consider it his opposition to Plaintiffs’ Mot. Seq. No. oo5, and which states in pertinent part”

Dear Judge Gianelli:

Plaintiffs have filed a motion (Motion Seq. S), to renew the Motion to Preclude (Motion Seq. 4). My opposition to Motion Seq. 4 is filed at Docket Entries to5 and to6. These entries have been sealed by the Court. Please accept Docket Entries 105 and 106, as well as my letter to the Court dated January 11, 202S (attached hereto) as my opposition to the renewedmotion. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, /s KeutnMaldonado

Despite his assertion that “Docket entries ro5 and 106” are sealed, Defendant Kevin Maldonado and the Firm failed to provide along with this January 29,202S letter, the documents entered under “Docket Entries 1O5 and 106″, which are Defendant Maldonado and the Firm’s documents. Further, no attached letter dated January tt, 2o21was found.”

“Defendants Maldonado and the Firm have not only been afforded numerous opportunities to comply with the Court’s Orders, including three (g) final warnings, Defendants Maldonado and the Firm have repeatedly and intentionally failed to comply, without reasonable explanation. An assessment of Defendants Maldonado and the Firm’s actions to date lead to the reasonable conclusion that the conduct is intentional, deliberate, evasive, uncooperative, designed to delay and avoid, and “willful and contumacious”.

“ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’motion (Mot. Seq. No. oo5) for an Order of the Court granting Plaintiffs leave to renew the Decision and Order of the Court, dated October 7, 2024, and entered October g,2c.24 (Mot. Seq. No. oo4), to the ertent it denied Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaims, and Third-Parry Complaint, filed September 8,2c.29, of Defendants Kevin Maldonado (“Maldonado”), and Kevin Maldonado and Associates, P.C. d/b/a Kevin Maldonado & Associates d/b/a Kevin Maldonado & Partners LLC (“the Firm”), is Granted; and It is

ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ motion (Mot. Seq. No. oo5) for an Order of the Court, striking the Answer pursuant to CPLR Stz6(g) because of Defendants Maldonado and the Firm’s willful and contumacious failure to comply with the Disclosure Order (Mot. Seq. No. oo4) and their disclosure obligations throughout the litigation, is Granted”