From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jaffe v. Hubbard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 2002
299 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-10254

Submitted October 16, 2002.

November 12, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated September 4, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 to the extent of precluding her from giving oral or written testimony, supporting or opposing claims and defenses, producing evidence or items of testimony at trial, introducing evidence at trial, and producing witnesses at trial.

Yaakov Kanovsky, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Bruce Hubbard, New York, N.Y., respondent pro se.

Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA L. TOWNES, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 against a party who has refused to obey an order or wilfully fails to disclose information which should be disclosed is a matter within the discretion of the court (see Nicoletti v. Ozram Transp., 286 A.D.2d 719; Pearl v. Pearl, 266 A.D.2d 366; DeJulio v. Wulf, 260 A.D.2d 425; Brady v. County of Nassau, 234 A.D.2d 408). Absent an improvident exercise of discretion, a determination to impose sanctions for conduct which frustrates the disclosure scheme of the CPLR should not be disturbed (see Miller v. Duffy, 126 A.D.2d 527, 528).

The defendant made a prior motion to compel disclosure, and the Supreme Court granted the motion to the extent of directing the plaintiff to deliver certain documents and to appear for a deposition by a date certain. Thereafter, the dates for disclosure were set forth in a preliminary conference order. However, the plaintiff failed to comply with either of the orders compelling disclosure, and failed to provide a reasonable excuse for her failure. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in precluding the plaintiff from giving oral or written testimony, supporting or opposing claims or defenses, producing evidence or items of testimony at trial, introducing evidence at trial, and producing witnesses at trial (see Pearl v. Pearl, supra; Brady v. County of Nassau, supra).

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jaffe v. Hubbard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 2002
299 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Jaffe v. Hubbard

Case Details

Full title:BEATRICE JAFFE, appellant, v. BRUCE HUBBARD, respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 12, 2002

Citations

299 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 491

Citing Cases

Lotardo v. Mary

Generally, the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 against a party who…

Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp

The Appellate Division properly found no abuse of Supreme Court's discretion and correctly affirmed. ( Marks…