"Defendants failed to meet that burden," the panel then wrote in the decision, "and indeed they do not contend that there is a reasonable excuse; rather, they argue only that they did not violate any of the court's discovery orders. That argument is belied by the record."

The panel's opinion did not say what criminal prosecution and potential charges had been instigated by certain lawsuit defendants against Prattico, or when or why the instigation of the prosecution occurred. But it did note that an underlying court record, which was not available per an online search, established that "the criminal charges [against Prattico] were dismissed by a grand jury before plaintiff [Prattico] commenced this action."

The panel focused its opinion mostly on the failures of a group of relevant lawsuit defendants— namely, the Rochester-based Titan Insurance and Employee Benefits Agency, LLC, its employees Michael Gurowski, Tammy Gurowski, and Marissa Benett, and Titan's successor in interest, US Retirement. (The panel noted that other defendants named in the malicious prosecution lawsuit, including the City of Rochester, did not appeal the lower-court ruling by Justice Martin and therefore these other defendants were "not relevant to this appeal.") The malicious-prosecution suit's defendants failed to comply with discovery requests from Prattico and his lawyers, and with discovery orders handed down by Justice Martin in the lower court, according to the panel's opinion.

Panel Justices Gerald Whalen, Stephen Lindley, John Curran and Brian DeJoseph explained that as discovery ensued in Prattico's 2014-filed lawsuit, Supreme Court Justice Martin "directed defendants to provide various materials to plaintiff [Prattico]" and "after determining that defendants failed to comply, the court repeatedly directed defendants to provide those and other discovery materials, and imposed sanctions on defendants for their failures to comply."

But "no appeal was taken with respect to those directions," the justices noted, and Prattico then moved … pursuant to CPLR [New York Consolidated Law, Civil Practice Law and Rules] 3126 for an order striking defendants' answer and deeming the allegations in the malicious prosecution cause of action admitted."

In affirming Martin's ruling that the malicious prosecution allegations lodged by Prattico must be deemed admitted by defendants because of their willful discovery failures, the panel justices noted that "it is well settled that '[t]rial courts have broad discretion in supervising disclosure and, absent a clear abuse of that discretion, a trial court's exercise of such authority should not be disturbed,'" quoting Carpenter v Browning-Ferris Indus. And they further pointed out that "the willful or contumacious character of a party's conduct can be inferred from the party's repeated failure to respond to demands or to comply with discovery orders," quoting Pezzino v Wedgewood Health Care Ctr., LLC.

"We conclude that the [lower] court [Justice Martin] properly exercised its discretion by striking defendants' answer and deeming the allegations in the malicious prosecution cause of action admitted," the Fourth Department justices wrote.

The defendants who chose to appeal the lower-court decision were represented by Michael Sullivan, a partner at Gibson, McAskill & Crosby in Buffalo, according to the Fourth Department opinion. He could not be immediately reached for comment.

Prattico was represented by Paul Sanders, a Barclay Damon partner, the opinion said. When reached, he declined to immediately comment.