From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. Lin

Supreme Court, Appellate Term. Second Department
Jun 5, 2000
184 Misc. 2d 982 (N.Y. App. Term 2000)

Opinion

June 5, 2000.

Ping Lee, New York City, appellant pro se.

Daniel L. Feldman, Flushing, for respondents.

PRESENT: KASSOFF, P.J., ARONIN and CHETTA, JJ.


DECIDED

Memorandum. Order unanimously affirmed with $10 costs.

The court's determination, denying plaintiff's motion to punish defendants for contempt, constituted a proper exercise of its discretion ( see, 6 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 3126.06). Contempt is not a sanction listed in CPLR 3126 for a party's failure to comply with disclosure. While said section does allow the court to impose, in addition to the sanctions set forth therein, any sanctions "as are just", the commentary following said section indicates that contempt is only in rare instances imposed against a party ( see, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C 3126:4, at 754-756; see also, 6 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 3126.06)


Summaries of

Lee v. Lin

Supreme Court, Appellate Term. Second Department
Jun 5, 2000
184 Misc. 2d 982 (N.Y. App. Term 2000)
Case details for

Lee v. Lin

Case Details

Full title:PING LEE, Appellant, v. PETER LIN et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term. Second Department

Date published: Jun 5, 2000

Citations

184 Misc. 2d 982 (N.Y. App. Term 2000)
712 N.Y.S.2d 740