Federal Chandros, Inc. v. Silverite Construction Co.
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Batista v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Small v. DMRJ Group LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Zekry v. Zekry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Zekry v. Zekry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Rodriguez v. Galin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- National Hotel Management Corp. v. Shelton Towers Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered on July 17, 1989, which granted a motion by defendant Silverite Construction Company to dismiss the complaint, granted a motion by defendant Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland for reargument of a prior cross motion to dismiss the complaint and, on reargument, granted the motion, denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for reargument of a prior motion by Silverite, and ordered the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiffs brought this action seeking the sum of $42,000 for performance of electrical work in connection with construction, renovations and improvements performed on the Long Island Railroad Hillside Support Facility, in which defendant Silverite was party to the contract, and in which defendant Fidelity issued a bond guaranteeing Silverite’s payment under the contract. The plaintiffs have offered, as a deposition witness, a principal of plaintiff Federal Chandros. This witness has refused to answer any substantive questions on the asser
The complaint was properly dismissed. As the IAS court noted, a party may not use a Fifth Amendment privilege as a shield to resist discovery while simultaneously pressing claims against the party seeking discovery (Steinbrecher v Wapnick, 24 NY2d 354; Laverne v Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 NY2d 635, appeal dismissed 386 US 682). This prohibition applies with equal force where the privilege is asserted by the principal of a corporate plaintiff (see, e.g., Dyno-Bite, Inc. v Travelers Cos., 80 AD2d 471, appeal dismissed 54 NY2d 1027). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.