From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pearl v. Pearl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 15, 1999
266 A.D.2d 366 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

In Pearl, the record established to the Court's satisfaction that a party's repeated failure to comply with prior orders for discovery was willful and contumacious.

Summary of this case from Sherril R.D. v. Alfred B.D.

Opinion

Argued September 21, 1999

November 15, 1999

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), entered June 19, 1998, which, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff former wife a 10% share in his accounting business and sole ownership of the marital residence.

Joseph A. Derrico, Jr., Hauppauge, N.Y., for appellant.

Emily Lynn Singer, Greenlawn, N.Y., for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that a court has broad discretion in determining the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed where a party has refused to comply with discovery demands ( see, CPLR 3126; Robustelli v. Robustelli, 262 A.D.2d 390 [2d Dept., June 7, 1999; Maillard v. Maillard, 243 A.D.2d 448). Here, the record clearly establishes the defendant's repeated failure to comply with prior orders of the Supreme Court for discovery was willful and contumacious. Thus, the defendant was properly precluded from submitting evidence relating to his finances and financial issues of fact were properly deemed to be resolved in favor of the plaintiff ( see, Brady v. County of Nassau, 234 A.D.2d 408; Reed v. Reed, 93 A.D.2d 105).

In addition, contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances presented here, the trial court properly selected a date as close to trial as practicable for valuation of the marital property ( see, Sagarin v. Sagarin, 251 A.D.2d 396; Marcus v. Marcus, 137 A.D.2d 131; Wegman v. Wegman, 123 A.D.2d 220).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., SANTUCCI, ALTMAN, and KRAUSMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pearl v. Pearl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 15, 1999
266 A.D.2d 366 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

In Pearl, the record established to the Court's satisfaction that a party's repeated failure to comply with prior orders for discovery was willful and contumacious.

Summary of this case from Sherril R.D. v. Alfred B.D.
Case details for

Pearl v. Pearl

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH PEARL, respondent, v. RICHARD PEARL, appellant

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 366 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
698 N.Y.S.2d 160

Citing Cases

Inc. Vill. of Cove Neck v. Petrara

Where a party fails or willfully refuses to make disclosure, CPLR 3126 authorizes the court, inter alia, to…

Cyngiel v. Krigsman

It is well settled that a court has broad discretion in determining the nature and degree of the penalty to…