Opinion
06-05-2000
PING LEE, Appellant, v. PETER LIN et al., Respondents.
Ping Lee, New York City, appellant pro se. Daniel L. Feldman, Flushing, for respondents. KASSOFF, P. J., ARONIN and CHETTA, JJ., concur.
OPINION OF THE COURT
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, NY 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 C3126:4, at 754-756; see also, 6 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3126.06).